High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Venkatamma Alias Pillamma W/O … vs Nannejan S/O Late Sri Gulam … on 9 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Venkatamma Alias Pillamma W/O … vs Nannejan S/O Late Sri Gulam … on 9 March, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil


V. _ iiijsa NARAYANA MURTHY

iN THE PHGH CGUR/1′ 0? KARNATAKA AT ”
mmn THIS THE 09TH DAY OF 7% _ .

BEFORE ” V ‘ 1′ V’ V A

THE HOWBLE MR.VJUS'{; 1Cfii’*E_3n.S.P}§*if’f.L’- = ”

WRIT PE’I’ITiON No.’1′:;’3::s;71 gdbzt

BETWEEN ” ‘ i

1 SM’? VENKATAMMA ALIAS PELLI;,AMMAf ‘
w/0 LATE :3.P.NARAYANAP?A’, 1 ”
AGED:84 YEARS, . — _
R/AT.OLIGERAI-EALLE v;LLgGE, V’ ~
DUBASIPALYA;’LKEN(3§:R1_ PANci~m*A’1′;””‘
MYsoRE:”’12£3.Ai:-,v- Es_ANG;ALORE=~56Q Q59.
REPREs§;N’~£_’E§> BY ‘_
GPM.~1._L13.E;:64*¥E:e.Rs;’ _ ”

V _ _ _ PETITIONER
(By Sri 1-; NEEL§KAN’i’3 Rst),«…,%s{::>\/.)

— VAND V

NANN§33JAN–.

T_s;Q’—;ATE.sR;.GULAM MAI-IIDDIN
._ .AGED:’£39 ‘i*EA;Rs, R/A’r.No.9s/2,
A H CROSS}, 6″I’H MAIN, VINAYAKANAGAR,
“-«QLQVGEDBAMHALLI, MYSQRE ROAD,
BANC§AL{)RE~56O 026.

‘S10 A P VENKATANARASIMHAIAH
mamas YEARS.

3 v PADMANABHAIAH

4′ s/0 A P VENKATANARASIMHAIAH
AGED 54 YEARS, R/A’I’.NC). 143,
MACHOHALLI VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLIT,

a suit for bars injunction and as no cause sf actiqgiii have

arisen against the impleading applicant, the

had no right or interest to resist th§”Iif&}’fif 1;i:1ad_r:i f

injunction against the defendant I Oliscivatian

made to the cflect that the aniflicantii filed’

O.S.No.87S7/ 2002 and Jtiicrefqtsiw’».atppIiéati9n..–€fi1ed under
Order 1 Rule 10(2) did consideration.

3. Having__ the parties and on
is not.c:n_titlsr1_ suit. Admittedly the suit
is filed fs’rAbar’e of action for the said suit is

the thmatenetl of possession and enjoyment of the

property’-the’ icicfcndants therein.

‘ * 4, .I_tis ‘axzsfl._¢stab1ist1eci that an injunction operates against

against whom the decree is passed. The

–peiiti<:in,e.fr :15: arrayed as one of the party defendants in the

it aftoiibs passed in the said suit. If the petitioner is in

.i_&ipo£~:.séssion of the property in questicm and if he apprzrhends that

T are likely to be affected, it is open for him to insfitute

" isxwother pmccedings as are permissibie in law. The order

passed by the Court below rejecting the app§cafig1;""!$Véi£:gV'i'§ght

and justified no iI1tCI'.f€I'('3I}C€ is called for in writ VV

Hence, the Writ petition is dismissedg _ Vv ..

  A      7«l,vA'~Iu.Ad99V»%

JL