WP NCL60517/2010
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY,
BEFORE 4. A'
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE »SUBHA'SHH'VV'B';B..AE5I'
WRIT PETITION No.B051T/A2C'10'(GM+CRC;
BETWEEN: T ' V A
MOHMMAD I-IASAN SHAIKH ALEBAHEB MIRZA?u
S/O ALI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 52* YEARS '
R /O MIRZANI MANZIL, MTJSLIM e}'AL1";Tjj~ O 'A
KUMTA-581343 V t _
U.K.DISTRICT . V . - ._},._PE'FIT}ONER
(BY
AND:
1. ABDUL RAHH/1A'N ALI SAHEB MIRZANI
AGED A BOUT-.67.YE«A-Rs,
R/O HABI-BAJAMAL MANZIL,
ROAD, BHEND1 BAZAR ANKOLA,
_ U.1'<.fD_I'BT
A-2." "MO.'fHM'RiE.Di.~JAMAL SI-IAEKH ALI SAHEB MIRZANI
A '-AGED"_'AB'OUT 74 YEARS,
-._R/O ~8_--B/304, DAMODAR PARK
'L.,B'.s, MARG, GI-IATKOPER (WEST)
Mun.-TBA:-400086
}'¢1BDUL KHADIR SHAIKH ALI SAHEB MIRZANE
"AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O 105, HAJIRA, HEMANT NAGAR,
P 85 T COLONY, KESHAVAPUR
WP No.60517/2010
HUBLI--S80023
4. SHAMSUZZAMAN SHAIKH ALI SAHEB MIRZANI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, '
R/O AJMIR MANZIL _
NEAR RESHMI SCHOOL, KESHWAPUR
HUBLI--5S0 023
5. BIBI HASHAMAT ARA W/O O.I{UIiéE:G}.' 'AND ETC.,
PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
1* V' * "j;.,,HS.ARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
WP ?\§o.605 17/2010
ORDER
1. Petitioner has called in question
04.12.2009 in FDP 4/2006 passed bymthe learrredfililviil Jgag;e;u
(Sr.Dn.), Kumta produced at Annexu.re–(}-.» A. 3
2. There is no dispute ..jn diecreeg’
petitioner is allotted with defeiidaril N082, 3,
5 to 8 have also got shareisii_a_It invidi.spute that on the
basis of the prel.inf¥1ivna1y:i proceedings were
initiated in property that is a land
bearingiiSy;N_oii’8Jé3 house bearing No.478. It
is found./_th’at not divisible and in this regard
it is reportedgthatiltheipropcrties are required to be brought to
sa1¢..i_ From arnongst___’the parties, defendants 2, 3 5 to 8 all
agreed iiorp of the property and apportioning the sale
pniceedis the share holders in terms of their shares.
–V I-Iov\réxzeri_theii petitioner alone has objected. The grievance of
iisgtlreipetitioner is that he is entitled to claim half share on the
.i that the other sharers have got landed property. This
“Tact is not before the court. Admittedly, petitioner is entitled to
r%Lv!:”+
,’.§”