3
looked upon the petitioner as his own son, thong; a
biological son, and had, time and f”
appreciating the petitzionefis talents V’ ‘
the petiizioner alone who would I.’
and interest over the immovable .
and in fact had the name of t’ iie.’ vpet;_itiei1ef in
the electoral rolls, e
According to the petitiexlcle, lifetime of
Sri. K. i1fi: :&that a Will was
executw ” property in favour
of the the petitioner to take
custody mam and fulfill his desire,
appre.§A1Ae%t1di11gV tmtems children may initiate legal
V 3i_£j:gs,.v:ué;«–p,ause for worry. The petitioner is said to
Keshavachar that the possession of
his siim ‘gem lead to suspicious circumstances which
& A ground by which the Will itself would be set
and therefore, did not have the courage to
‘ ” custody of the said Will and reauested the Testator
fix
5
Ramaswamy filed a petition before the III Add}. I Munsifi’
at Mysore which was numbered as H.R.C.No. 198,1.
to evict the petitioner A’
proceeding is said to have 1 fag’
eviction as against %fi:iehpie1’ened
Revision Petition No.22 dismissed,
was carried ‘ii.,:i§.R.P.507§/2003
which too we e
3. ‘pf:fitioI1er, vexed with the
disputes ” ‘ gs by the legal
‘K…._.Keshavaehar, quite contrary to the
the petitioner sent an e-mail to the
Pxesidenti which was in turn forwarded to the
tetiie Government of Karnataka for necessary
It is based on such a representation the
is said to have diroctea the Mysore City
[Corporation to examine the claim of the petitioner for
review of katha, in exercise of jurisdiction under Secfion
irk
6
114(a3 of the Karnataka Muxlioiml
1954. That enquiry is said to have resulted agttmmoo % t
of the claim of the pefitioner. The K V’
oonsidezed the said report and
held that the petitioner __not'”
sufficient enough to _t
in the immovable in W the
deceased K. irapugned,
rejected the V
.leamed ootmsel for the
petitioner’ the for the City Corporation,
_ the judgment, that: can be no
mind that in the absence of the Will
of the claim’ of the petitioner that he is a
H Vt .legatee the 1mm’ ovable property in question is
, is Iewlly unsusta1na’ ble. Ne1ther’ the
nor a copy of the Will is produced except for the
statement of the petitioner that
UK
8
rejected by the Sccrctaxy to the Government in his
Anncxure—-“A.
5. An examination of the of: the ”
petitioner, 1 find that the whole 15:3′ 3
built on non-existent foundatipn
stem from fallacious .__v
relevant material bcforé” as well as this
Court which matter in
question, decision in the
which a properly
i11foI’mc:d short to obtain a decision
on fiance, this writ petition is
_ \wiritI1c«1i:;.’i:’V11:1».*t=.I’it acgmmmgly, rejected.
Sd/-2′
Iudgé”