High Court Karnataka High Court

N Srinivasa vs G Channarayappa S/O Late Gummaiah on 14 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
N Srinivasa vs G Channarayappa S/O Late Gummaiah on 14 July, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN1Tfi§HKH{COURT(H?KARNATAKA,BANGALORE

'1':-11+: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE  MDHA1;f.';E2EQDY  " '

1

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2003

BEFORE

WRIT PETITION NO. 16492,o:s#

BETWEEN

N SRINIVASA   
AGE:51YEARS,'>.V_  "jé 

3/ 0 LATE V NARA.YANAswAM¥j AA  
R/O NO 325/2 PANTHARRAPAI_.YA.".V 
KENGERI.HOBL1_-..--v._f-   v 

"MY$Q1éE--"Re:)_}xn 'BKNGALORE SOUTH TALUK
B.aN<3ALo:«m-39  

N AS'HWATf¥ANAE'!.i*ANA

; AQrE:49"Y.EARS %
~  s1 0 LATE  1s:%MgmAYANAswAMY

R R0 323/ 2 PANTHARRAPALYA

 :e:_E;»1GER1_HoBL1
 MYSORQEROAD BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
" » BAre.(}Aj;oRE--39

" .P" N is:i=ésHNAMuRHTY

P«.(}E:38 YEARS
S] O LATE V NARAYANASWAMY

 R/O no 325/2 PANTHARRAPALYA

' KENGERI HOBLI

MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-39

N HARISHA

AGE:33 YEARS

S] O LATE V NARAYANASWAMY
R/O NO 325/2 PANTHARRAPALYA K

j/,



KENGEMHOBLI  
MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE SOUTH 'i'a_._LU--K  
BANGALORE~39  '   * %

~ ...;'--«.PE:TI;{'ION:E1RS 

{By Sri: S GANESH SHENOY 85 RAI§)iESH ? KU L§<;ARN;;  "

ADV.) s .
AND

1 cs CHANNARAYAPIQV 3/{:5 i,ATi€.4Gi3'MMAIAii M
AGE:53 YEARS    
R / 0 PANTHARAPA.LYA--.KE_N GER} IAKJBLI
MYSORRERQAD'   .  
BANGALORE, scum TALLJK'  ', 

BAN(}ALC}'£€?§}_e;39v    

C SANEEPABABU. $10 13; cHA.NNARA¥APPA
AGE-.20 YEA.Rs_ _ *    _ ;

R] 0 PANTHARAEALYA ~§s:ENA1fiITHARA PALYA
 'BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

 i2"vENKATARAMU
° s/0 LATE RAG}-IAVMAH

xi; 

AGE:45 YEARS } F
J



4 T T
gs' recording the name of Respondent 

respondent Pattanagere City Municipai it ‘ it

2. Even according to the’;Ieai*11ed~«t

for the petitioners, the pettitioners

interest in the property in ingestion, ‘both .’eo-owners

as Well as fbeqnest ‘roadie by their
grandfather under a matter of

proceedings ” suit = partition in
o.s.No_.4-12 ppfile of the City Civil Judge at

Banga1ore’,. the 375 respondent, coupled

ipa of permanent injunction in

L’ in favour of the petitioner and against

~ 1 that is so, the submission of the learned

Senior counsel that there exists a serious dispute over

V’ title to the property in question between the petitioners

on one hand and the Respondents 1, 2 and 5, on the

other, that dispute apparently cannot be conveniently

to secure consequential reliefs fmm the comp§téf1t :’Civil

Court seized of the matter in

matter of transfer of katha in t1*iéir’ »

entitled to in law.

KS