of the 29" respondent, in respect of Sy.Nos.2/14, 2-',-€15
and 55/ 1 of Anjanapura village.
.4. Aggrieved by that, the _
this Writ petition.
5. In brief, the factseare, eefiiiioner s:I’«1 ‘e~
is the da11ghter–in-law of/’§l’apaIingi»and she is ~enti§.1ed for
a share in the pmpefties evifixout
considering this, in favour
of the 2M of the family
and therefore, sustained in law
and thefeforie,”
6. ux’i’he – for the petitioner
v eentefideél that,’ uti1e,..:2.nd respondent is the member of the
in question are not the tenanted
131921-;”1’s” a11::<;'l. 'fiieiiefere, the Tribune} was not justified in
rights. He also submitted that the
' fieeepondent is the son of Venkatalai-ishmamxna, who
V. Vene of the daughters of late Papanna and therefore,
V fthe impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
L/
7. As against this, the ieamed Government
Pleader submitted that the Tribunal eonsicleiitig-e.eA¢
material on record and also taking into
that the 21″! respondent was ctxltijratixigothe fie
is a deemed tenant, has gran’ ted A’
therefore, the impugxed does. ‘ not for
intexferenoe.
8. I have submissions made by the
9] H’l”hef my consideration is,
for interference?
It to note, the Tribunal has
rights, in favour of the Qmi
1;e°3x5pC~I1<VietAiuf§ej';iii= I;espect of Sy.Nos.2/14, 2/15 and 55/1
[of village, on the ground, the 23" respondent
V' V' '2..f_'}.z§: tenant; The Tribunal has not considered
v§1:1eti1er the 2M respondent was the member of the
V' " or not. Admittecfly, the 231%' respondent is the son
of Venkataiakshxnamma, who is one of the daughters of
late Papanna. Without considerizlg this, the '1'rib1ma.1
L/
has granted accupancy rights and therefore, the
impugned order cannot be sustained in law'.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is
the impugxed order at Alanexuxir-‘A’» K 2
Tribunal, Bangalore South ‘rank, _
No. LRF:1294/75-76 is quasm ff€f§é”‘mé1tter k A %
is remitted. to the with a to re~
consider the same, -law, by giving
opportunity to V V
Sd/~31
“””