High Court Karnataka High Court

Ladsab S/O Honnursab Yelburgi vs Rajasab S/O Honnursab Yelburgi on 5 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Ladsab S/O Honnursab Yelburgi vs Rajasab S/O Honnursab Yelburgi on 5 December, 2008
Author: N.Kumar


And:

Her THE HIGH ¢::oUR’r or KA.RHAT£a§*f.A c:RCUI’i*’:E:::,§’.f-fittxi

AT DHAREEFAD

Dated this the 5″” zéay of Decemb{:r_, 2:E}QE§VA.T.:” 3

B:~_2;1’«-‘0R}§: » T J T
THE Hmwzm MR» _J$8’§”!{§E H. 1{t:.::.§A;R” V

Wm Petimfon N0. 122943-oi’ 2005. fuM”;.:ci5Q}

Between:

Lac}.-sab — VA ‘

S/0 Hoxmursab AYelb1:11fgi _ ‘v

Aged about 5? «§:¢a3’s ‘
Occ: AgxiCu1Vt%_;ri$i’L’V’ _ _
RIO Dotihal
Kustagi .V f ‘ ‘

* (By i'(;3: S3:_i Malipatii,

V _ Va”Efii?,?f0i3r’if€AE§) ” _.

Rajasab’ ” u V’

/ 0 H’c}an:;_1i”::.21§b Yeiburgi .~

Aged §bo1i¥ ‘4};’ jgrears

‘-Oct)’: Pglicvc: Co1:1sfita1:_)1e

Ego l._3:3.tiI1.:’:ii~. ” V
Workiiag at ‘§~it;kai100r
P<::r}ice–..S£atia.m_

'Ye1burga1"31uK

7 S,/2G~HO.i1Ilu1Sab

-. fXgt::–Ci about 30 years

‘;<.haja..g;a§55eersab

_0cc§: Agricuiturist
. ':2'/o Otihal Taluk

' V ' A .. u jfwibuxgi

Kushtagi

. . . Petitiszmer

8 Mehabubbi
W] 0 Musbafa
Aged about 42 years
R,' 0 Baiaganoor Taluk
Sindhanoor

4 Amcerbi .

W/0 Osmanasab Nadtfimésni
Aged ab-ant 45 years ”

Dec: Househoid
R] 0 Dotihal Taiziii

Kxzstagi ” ” ,_..Responden3:S
(By 333: c:1au;c:r:§s;aeka;:,P. imvocazeg

‘Fhis:Writ }.?”€:tifio11_is.fEiédi;.nt:ier Articles 226 and 22?’ of
the C()3’1E§.’E;i1_il}:ii(;i}I1.’:{Zf..§I1{fi£:i,_’pt’&}’iITl\g to quash the sxfler dated
I,8~7–22VOO6 passcé in _N0.?”;’ 2001 on the file of Civil Judge
(J Z’. if)Ii:) , Kustagh -.v:i;ir: }%–r;:ieXura~}<'.

"£'hiS– f_W1:i.1; on fin" pmlimmary E3,€aring in
'B' grogp this 9133?,' thefloiirt made the fofilowingz

Q R D E fl
'i"i14é".gb§e'::§T:ifi:3'i1er has challenged in {his Writ Petition the

carder the trial Ceuxt directing 3335 cf the praperty in

' "":¢I*ms {::f.Secti0n 3 ofthe Paliifion Act.

b' H 2. 'The prztitioner filed the suit 13:31" partitien and separate

hyjjbssession emf his 1/ 4'31 shares: in the suit Schcdule pmpefiy.

Tbs suit is deemed. in the final decree proceedings :9:

cammissioner was appomted to <:::{fect a p¢;;)f’1§1€i”‘p€fifi(€I|_i1€I,j¥'(:tti%{fl,- 1

L.-#4

padasala and Gpen space is :given; __ ‘1;i3§: o£E1¢r_ ti”11*€’& vbfdtiiérs

can Cflflvfifiififlflfig enjoy the
other brothers have viiigti ohjéc: ‘”‘i”h¥);y*¢:%_ii:;¢::1péfittiqzgg to be €:11j0ye£i by each
of the }has ordereci for gait: of the
entire G1? the Paxfitiou 2’-‘kct. Aggrieved

by the saéiii40r:ive.f;”pés’i;§i1e3fi§.r has preferreti this Wflt Petition.

£,§ar;1e§fi i:miJi1se1 for the petitioner submits that, in

“i_t{)Vx’£3”!iif?gACF£D€i’ 1/-filth share is déckared. As per the skcizch

hi-1 has e n§§h__3-s.é5:<3 11:; the Writ Petifion, if 3 room, a paciasala,

apex; given ta him towarcis his 1/431 sham, he is also
pay the diifcmncc in price and his sénfimeni to
i the anczzstrai property is satisfied. Decree is also

a "Séitisfied and them is no necessity to effect the 3511:: of the

property as ordered by the Court below.

4. If tlm parties is the suit agree t11€:r¢'”is

But if one of fhem insist that gas}; shfoiihd’ i€;q41;.23l’L’f<§«ii1*?.

::;onv€m}en,t shares, the Court has { '£.C:. Ciéiflifiifij'xVh€;f3E3,éi; .:th€ '

pmperty can be ciivideé __f0u1V'a 't=.c'1fua1'
because the plaintiffk suit is \:fE:a1"" that does
£101": mean: that om}; to be Cazved out.
The c:1:11:ii:lc¢:n3.e:1t of parties is not in
dispute. Each ?%**'w%#hare. if the property
is dividad j;«'~:, '€x1é»'t possible to enjoy the
vUnc¥e1' these circumstances,
the ()I}}V.;§',?a{;V)'i:}.*–_"i<)VI1'I§i."I;.» is to 01133: tbr an auction, i.e.,

the sale of fjite fiiiéier Secticm 3 ofthe Paztifien Act. in

u offhe 1V'1fV1at'tt3'r',V the ozder passéd is legal and vaiid and

dd' any i}:lt€I'f€I't:I1CC. .Hen.ce, fhff psiition is

disfiiisseé.' ' Q I

— –N