IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALQRE
DATED '1':-as THE Lem my ore SEPFEMBHEE': u
BEFORE
THE HOBFBLE MR. JUs*i'IcL' flu
w.P.N0.11so5/zoostczfi-CPC3 = * K \
BETWEEN M i A B A
Maya:z1nabyLRs.
I. Doilamma H ._
W/o Late Maya;i1'za@ ibodditgfiwtda, - '
Aged about _
2. %
Aged abQ11t_4E3 .. '
3. AA S
Ageg; about 38 %
'years,
5;P3__@ar;3jii;
M V . Ageéi a1x)u't'3Oyca1's.
' _ VDonIié.gowda,
"CA-.g¢d"A_about 28 years.
"Petitioners Nos.2 to 6
' are children of
Mayanna @ Doddegowda,
All residing at Gudigenahalli,
Devalapura Hobli,
Nagamangala taluk,
Mandya District. : '
"
(By Sri. R.B.Sangamesh, for Assoéiaiées.)
AM)
1.
SaI1namari@Ramegowda’; :
S/0 I)odda;;pegow:iéi;V”~.’:: –
Aged aboum-A¢3%yeaz–s, _
_ Filter Shed ..bi:tt¢r”‘E~I¢té}..ne–9r–«’_’
Ja1ma;iu;ra;._}3hati.ra§?af11i;” V V
SI1it&10ga Ls.is1i’ig:t, ”
2. cnmka mam
8/0 I>9cidaP;?¢g0$v<1é2,L "
3.Jat:aIago\§dé, ‘ ”
D9d(1_appégewda.
. Giidigatnaily,
‘ ,,I:5€?Va3£4{I’3U17azI’iOb1i,
taluk,
“Mendya– ]IJf_.isi:1’ict.
‘,4.Mauya:ma.
xi’)/0 Dtaddappcgowda,
» New Siddapura,
‘ Sitidcshwara Nilaya,
1651 Cross, Bhadravathi,
. ___7Sh1moga[)1str1ct.
:RESPONDEN’I’S
propierties.
herein) is issued and other lots are allotted V. V’..t:o._V_ot.her
brothers’. As could be seen from the
share of the writ petitioner is determined”as.:
filed by the counsel for the piaintjfi/;eisp§ndee: r
and delivery warrant is issueties
to put the plaintiff in of and also
to put the other of their respective
1/5th share. ‘£’_§:1eV_.order’ is passed after the
Commissioner”__ a division of
the “i with the preliminary decree
passed separate sketches for different
it Commissioner submitted his report the
petitioner jherein has filed objections to the remrt
inter alia that the total extent of the land
avaflsble as per the akarbcznd and the extent of the land
-»v-rolentioned in the suit schedule were not the same and the
surveyor did not measure the properties properly. It is also
%
contended by the petitioner in his objections
of the property divided into diflerent bits ‘is
and the surveyor is not competent ~:
the report without fnrnish*3ng..
Commissioner.
4. The Court that although
petitioner was share from out of
the divisions do so under protest
of the proceedings, the
his option and therefore it
was a fit issue of delivery warrant directing
V’ tlzeeietitionexf to in possession of northern lot in all
measure pending final decision on
4 mersbjeceonsrned.
2 V» ‘C ~..5.IiearI1ed counsel for the petitioner contends that the
adopted by the Court below is illegal and without
‘u”‘.vnuthority of law. He submits that unless the Court is
satisfied after considering the objecfions flied by the parties
e
that the division effected by the Commissioner’ and
proper and is in accordance with the
delivery warrant as a temporarjz ‘1 coilid, t.1i:33Vé’«…
been issued.
6.Upon hearing, the “co*onse1:»–forvi§the parties
and on perusal of the find force in the
contention the petitioner.
It is clealj petitioner has filed
objections by the Commissioner
and the surveyor. Petitioner has
pointed oiit defects in the report submitted by the
v _Coroini;$sioner. nit’ incumbent for the Court: to examine
necessary orders on the objections
ifiiereaiter decide whether to accept the report
npsubmitted by the Commissioner in toto or on such
A 5: ‘oonditions and terms as it deemed fit and proper. Without
” aeopting any such method, the Court below has straight
away ordered issue of delivery warrant directing the
fiz
to consider the objections and pass final
as expeditiously as possible at any rate wifis
from the date of receipt of copy of –
shy- 1 1 Judge ;i.T?i: months . _