' ~ . _AGRi{:UL'f'L¥'RIST
iN THE Hm COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BA1s§£;§}ii;:C}'fé'§/T1. _
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY C)17§.,F_EBI?:U';A;i§\fv:2i#:).Q:9V V %
BEFORE A & % j
THE I~i0N'BLE MR. .}'(}'$ICI:'§F*%;}§.P¥ANi);2;\ 5;
WRIT PETITION No. 1 :33
RFHWEEN: VA
2. CRAMIESH
S10 LATE CLzIKi-;AD£;v§:,eQw.DAf_--.._ :
AGED 44 Yssaas-, cc;A:31'éICuL¥1'URE-«----~"
R/O cHms:;31§E~--3.II;L1;Ac_;z«; ' ' »
KASABA HGBLI,
PANDAvA':>u"Rm?ALLt§{ ._ ' "
MANDYADEST " _ ..PE'I'ITIONER
(By-v.vsx--i.\ V N 'B.-'3ADIV1'AV£1_ RE'-.I_'__)DY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. sA:qNAT:iA1€AMz§§A
WA/0 LATE JA'«JARE cowm
"A(3E,.E,YEARS " """ "
REOVCHANDVRE VILLAGE
'{KASABAVH€I§BE;I,
P;mBAvz_aP13RA TALUK _
*-MANDYA DIS'?
DEVEGOWDA
~ : Sm LATE JAVARE GOWDA
_ AEAED 56 YEARS
*A<;3R:cuLTUR1sT
R/O CHANDRE VILLAGE
T KASABA HOBLI, --
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA E3¥S'I'
3. RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA
S/0 LATE JAVERE GOWDA
AGE!) 43 YEARS
A(3R.¥CUL'I'URiS"I'
7. NAI;R;§. TALUK
'1's«AI<i:2'm_ DIS'?
_O'x
S/O KARIGOWBA
AGED ~45 YEARS
AA : 134/o K.R.$.ROAD,
, PANDAVAPURA TOWN
":\«iAND'YA DIST RESPONDENTS
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 65 227 OF' THE
THE CFVIL JUDGE (JR.E)N} AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA ON
IA.NO.I0 IN OS.NO.90/96 DT.2I.12.2006, ANS 5.1.2007, AS
PER ANN~F.
This petition, earning on for preliminary
in B Group, this day, the: Couxt, made the fo1lu§§i_i1;gi- -- '2 V
ORDER
a
This suit is filed for
permanent. injunction. ‘Ph¢..’rg_=:spofide’nt ha»:«§5 };)ri’
the registered saie deed dated 3.980.
2. It is the _m§:e purchased
the suit 1r–::1Vxidf.tV*.1’E”‘ registered sale
deed dated fItt.’.?i)Q¥;éd(3flt/dftffifldflflt. As
could and statement made
by both the” ” have net disputed the
of saie deed dated 5.7.1980 and
therein. In the copy of the
dated 5.7.1930 the smlthern
._ pmperty transferred to the plaintiff’ is
as mad leading to Pandavapnra.
During the pendency at’ the suit, plainfiff made
“an applittzafion for appointment of commissioner to
demarcate the suit schedule property and the
defendant’s nmnfirty. The learned trial judge has
W. g’/x.»-*’*~$–“{-‘*—-
5
5.7. 3980, piaintifi’ can assert his rights only in resuattt
of the pmperty described in the sale deed.
The learned triat judge vvithom: 1Indersfandifri’gT:.fii!§€=…A’
reg} controversy between the has ”
commissioner by relying on a derziswiené jiri {LR
I999 Ker. 1813. Therefore, the
be sustained.
7. In
The 3 The impugned order is
set aside.’ ‘
sal-
Judge
erngh