<' IN THE HIGH mum or KARNATAKA AT BAN(3;;}A'L()é=':1§;: DATED THIS THE 10?" my 01? SEPFEMBER-iéfldéii _ 1' E BEFORE W.P.Ro. ms HONBLE Dr. JUS'I'lCE} aHAgTHAma§3A§,§VV :2 WRIT PETITION No. 17968: BETWEEN: Ramakzrishnappa, S/o.}ate Nanjappa, _ : Agcd about "£8 2: C] o.Sri. Padfivaflai No.42G, sth Main}! . " Sri.PatcI Chcmzlappa';--- 1I;_ 3 V Industrial Artflfii '7: Bangalore-560 0'.7.3,V.* (Senior citzizaeizahip (By sri.T.R.Raje§1:a;?aaa VAx21v.)._, " "¥'¥D= % " 530d a7b0utV8fl"¥€iil'§ , ,s7;~g. _ wSiLp.Sri,Puft7appa, " -A'£¢dwab_'st 45 years "%3.i11%s§i.n;§:unj;~aju.M, about55ycara; ...PE'E'I'I'lONER w. P. No. 179a§)'2co7 4. Sri.Vcnkataramu,, S[o.M.Mu:airaju, Aged about 3'? years, 5. Sr1.K.Subraman1, S] o.P.Kr1shaappa, Aged about 19 years, All the respondents an:
R] a. Medahally village,
Bidarahalli Hobli, V _ 5
Bangalore East Talukg ‘A 1 . : ‘–..,RESPONDEN’I’S
(By Mfsdvlylaraiah ” z ‘ ‘
This Writ Art1c ‘”1cs 226 and 227 of the
Constit11tion,.of,ix.idia, “p_rayin_g.__to se-t…a:;11dc the orcicr paswd on
l.A.No.5 ¢1:,::=s.7. in €:).S.No.,41./2005 on the file of 11 Add}. Civil
Jucige (Sr.Dia;}, Bangahjt aflistl’, etc.
This writ l?e’i:itidi; on for prcitiminary hearing in ‘B’
Group, day, fie’. madé the fofiowing:-
pIa1’I1tifi’ in 0.S.No.4l/2605 on the file of Civil
_ ,J}.1dge (J1ixLi<;rA:_ Division), Bangabm Rural Diatrict, Bangalore is
praying for quashing the order dated 28.07.2007
§o»1'1"I.A.V in the above said suit at Anncxurc 'B'.
2. Learned counsci hr the pctifioncr submits that the
‘betitioncr has fiicd a suit against Resp-ondcnt. No.1/Puttappa and
W.P.No.179fig{2G0?
his two sons, viz., Respondents 2 mid 3 herein
injunctiozl restraining them from intexfggigg “p:1ai1:V:tifi”s”
possession and cnjoymcnt of the suit
of the suit, Rcspozldczglt No.1 died am: ~ ,
record, tht: impktading application by 4 and 5,
(the grand–sc-ns of Respondséjfi. N”! u1;v;vur*£,L3:V:.a:s Va:x1:§)l»)scrvation that in a
suit for No.1. cause of
action woujd’ 2 and 3, but the Trial
Court has application (LAN) filcd by
Respondents A S ”
Respondents 4 and 5, implcading
t;ef;§1z§”3;§e f1a~1a1 Court submits that them is no incgahty
‘ V’ V or i:mpugu::d onicr.
A4. Résfiiandcnts 4 and 5 that the suit property has
in their name by their grand-father Puttappa
% -tiéégpgandcnt No.1) under a win and thcncforc. they are cntitloci to
can record as icgal heirs in the suit and contest the same.
kw
W.P.No. 1?9{j s'”;2oo7
The above said obsctvation made in Para No.7 of
order is not correct. As the grand u
Defendant No.1 claim right to the in .3
Will, thc ‘Trial Court has rightly albwpd flie.v_1iiiap}ce;i:§t2g %
filed by Respondents 4 and 5. 1 ity in the
impugned order. AV ‘A ‘
5. In the msult, the V-faséls same is hereby
dismissed. No J
bnw’