" »_cimY, INJUNCTIGN. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA§.'AKA. AT DATES THIS was 13" may or JULY, 2oQa x BEFORE THE HDH'BLE MR.JUSTICE L naaaxaxg swam: Va
REGULAR rrasm aypzgg so fisé by 2UGfix_’g
BETWEEN :
ABDUL KHALAQ
s/0 ABDUL sauna SAHEB } _=
45, RISALBAR swagsm
sssngnxxyuaam *~T-*, ;_
BANGALORE 550 020 -V_’)’*
(33 SR: 9 gaiéfimgkgg, AD? ,5
E . . . . .
smw sHYAMALADafix ‘=7
$70 A D sari?
j241,hHARGOSA*RQ§D
&EALEESHW3RAM
‘ .”BAK&ALQRE”560 003.
‘; {BY sfii AER GUPTA, ADV., C/R}
z* mfiis REA rs FILED AEAINST was aunamuw AND
weary: namm 4-7-2000 msszn :2: cs 240.4599/1993
AA “Ba? VTTHE XXIV ABEL. ,CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
DISMISSING TEE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AN!)
THIS RFA COIQHG ON FOR EEARING THIS DAY,
RESPOEEENT
THIS COURT DELI’Si’ER% THE E’GL330WIl§G: –
GRE
-2-
311.13%
‘1’he plaintiff is the %1J.an1_-._;”‘a¢:i_~ ..’.j2;’;a;_.V:’_1:a_s
challenged the order passed in
dated. 4-7-zooo on the 531$ ”
City Civil Judge,
qua.-shing the same. ‘fihat
purchased a ‘it’ in site
No.86 and Eran: and was in
peaceful. uflf-7}::fI:.fi§5.l.::i..£$;H3:”‘E,’;V:3’1′ In the year
1932, fifiexrering with the
pla.fi,3’§.’f.ff “;>¢’a§ §%ee;§:s:i.on of the property.
a suit for declaration.
Accotdifigé t§= since he was a nlanber
o£;’M_(s éhamfiréjafimt Art silk. Weaver: 5 Exporters
. .Vi§Ls£.:oiiia£i9n, l1¢”.=’.§”‘A1v:=12: allotted the said site by the
L… jzizén, = ‘3é’V:§.f”e:§’.€;c§:ent: of the Assaciation —
and by the then secretary of the
Asségiiation — 31:1 5 Munivenkatappa.
The defendant filed a written statement
denying all the averments made by the plaintiff.
According to him, he purchased the praperty from
…3-
one Rangaswamaga and he is in peaceful
pcssession. It is further that
sri.Mal1appa and Sri S Mmnivenkataypg, fiféfi whom
the plaintiff claims to have phfchatééttffié.
prqperty were not camp¢tént.A£9 itffinafeitzthét
title. Further the B133. «.
approval for £onnat1oh–.v:§§V_ tlzéai” :_.a;»qutA “*t:1{e
in question. §ence w#§v,thg §1lage¢E date af
purchase by the §l%in£;£§;.£E§:§ac;aty itself was
not in possagsiog ff thg£;%§d ifi whidh the site
in
the claim made by the
p1ain1:u.:Vi.£f ,- Khalak, power of attorney,
use V7p2.aaLint:;_::V has been examined as zrw-1.. on
the plaintiff, Ex.1?1 to 912 are
~. behalf of the defendants, :x.n1 to
533 éfe’§roduced.
4. The aux and substance of the diqputa
vfbetween the parties is whether the vendors of the
-4-
plaintiff and defendants are cttent
the sale deed.
5. The plaintiff
forum challenging the
mmivemcatappa and ai’so”‘£:.1e+.{£’ +.i-g.;r,1.9z:3a
petitions. A dispute 2 tiieiore the
Registrar of _ _ 1:; N Disputa
No. 803/98–93. Thg V societies has
provided ” persons to prove
their as Vendors of the
p1a5i;x’itift.{;5._V was represented and
‘ . Munivenkatappa. placed
materigtlg Registrar of societies and
hi1:ié£éaL.£…«as a coupetent office bearer of
‘ ;V”i:1f1Va–.§t:<:;i._e t3;gr_. on behalf of Rangaswmappa, vendor
"7 <'a£r him ffaefendant, it was argued. that
was not at all at Ixmlbar of the
AA agaoéifiation, but he was only an Auditor. I-Iencae
requested the Bagistrar to dismiss the claim
— made by aaunivenkatappa .
-5-
and the defandant the court below nix.
issuas .
8. The sum and subgt.an_<.f:es': .4_;,as:.niefs%.
framed is whether the 3th.at
he is the absolute of
27-12—19s9. While the court
below has referxt§&- passed by the
Registrar of Soc:j.gtie.s "":a,:.&4:Lé=:g:-1'V"datec1.24—3-4992
and th?-3 '§£-….+;he plaintiff and
upheld at .:a§£§a§aant.
9__ lg.-‘..’v,v…V_§;m_”pia1nt£:£ is before this court
subnxiétttfing tiaé belcw has erred in not
cc§ns.i_dering,__Vth1e tiaterial placed before it.
find 11¢ good grmmd ta interfere with
H ‘- the VV by the court belaw. Hence the
1% rejected.
Judge