IN THE HIGH 003R? 0?' I{AR'flA'TAI{A CIRCUIT BE}'§C
AT BHARWAD
Dated this the 19%: day cf Secember, 2033 I A'
BEFORE
'THE HGBFSLE ram. JUs1ficE ri. '-- ' _
Writ Petition No. 533*: 0f24C}£}3"iGM~C1'PC3 ' "
Between:
1
iéonnalfi Sidfiappa .
S/0 late Hire Siddappép'
Aged about 42 years
Smt. Dyavaéégma _, _V
W] 0 latcf:-V :.HiIE:"Sjdd&1§3p3
Aged a§iiou_t--.9E§S V' ._ _ *2
gm.
W] :3 Sauna B3s;appa"=. '
Aged ab-put 37' years ' "
. V R/'i:sV'LEija]tapctc
. Ȥ{1m;iigi;;;,~.tx-at -- 583 1 16
" Hampaxnma
W,'.;_):'K. Pompanna
., " ' 4_Age£*:i abaut 64 years
= _ R/at Madam Viiiage
Bellary Taluk
anci District -- 583 104 Pefitioners
(By Sri Gods Nagaraj, Afivocate}
Axxd :
1 Htmnalli Chidafiandappa
S/0 late Hire Sidtciapfpa
Agfid about 52 yaars
R/0 Ugjalapet
Kurugodu Village _ A
Bellary Taluk 82. Qist M 533 1 16*.' A '
2 Sri Gandi Sabjan S:-ab
S/o Gandi Naorsah
Aged about 30 yams
R] 0 Gfiflikfiflalli Viiiage --. _'
Bellary Taluk 55 I:)ist.--."E';.3:;s 115 '
3 Sri zulphikmazi Az.«:.d--.'_
S] 0 T Ahd.1:J>Sub}1a-nsab_ V.'
R/0 Molkaagmgmg 'vf;:13a,g'is 8: flfam: ' "
ChitraciurgaDisfgfifirt-._ j_,,,vj 2 ' Respondents
(E1;-f_S:'.i R §}iaganié:a:hz1:VRvao-, Advocate for R2 and R3;
1 . *RLesp::;:§jé(¢p»t~1 fiervcd)
This Patit§:::afi~,i;s"fi'ied untir:':1' Articles 226 and 22? of
the Ce;1i$ti:u£i0n"~:>,f I&:1ciia,' praying to quash the ixupugned Qrder
.d_ater_i_ "¢2§?:3--f2,0G8 'pasmd by the 111 Addifional Civfi Judge
EJ£.E1:.), in OS 3330.206/2006 Vida Anne:x:1.1Ie~§~{ and
i"~3._o'.' by tbs petitioners.
". "i'hi$'V§?1*iiA'T1f5eti1:ioz1 Coming (3:11 for p:'e1in1i:x1a:ry jhearing in
Z 'B' (}'£g}up_vti1i,3L'day, the £30131': maée {ha foiiewing:
ORDER
” I figs psiitioners ham =::ha};Ie11ge¢:1 in this petition the arder
by the tria} Court dismissing the apphcatian fflad far
a ” V . Vzfizfiiandmeut ef tha pbaim.
u/
2. The Ialajntifis lzava filed the suit for
separate possassion of their share in V
pmpexiy. Plaintiffs’ brotl1er-fiJ:’st delhiidéefifi 11513; egié
pane. it is the purchasers frem __ fiefE;€§i’3;Qii
contesfing the maiter. They the
wxittexl statement that, 1V§f–.’.,(.j.:{‘t3 was’?! “i,he~:§;ear 2000
and in the saié partition tn: the share 01”
mg first respond.::iit__ h,;#}::&§’ purchased the
property partitioJ:: S is not
maintainfablg,’ véocumenis am producezd.
When ‘g*2_€=, 1’z:: ‘E0-‘admit the earlier partiiion, in
the light €513. V V ‘f3ViC1C114;’,?€ produced before: the
Court, haxzh, pféine vlup with the prfisent application for
“$36: plaint plfiading the partition of 2000 21116. the
faiicn to their share in the saié partétion
a11dAt{c:_cy jw’anu£~V’t§5 contend that the suit SCh€:d1}_1€ property was
‘ the siuiizfiaczt mattsr of tbs partitizgm. sf 2000.
If malty paxfitien tack place in 2009 and the suit
” Vsbhédifla pm-party was not the subject mattezr, a duty was cast
V u [021 the piaintifis to pleat} specificaiiy these facts and than stats
ta/’