Smt Byamma W/O Thodala Paliah vs Smt Obamma W/O Late Thodala Paliah on 17 March, 2008

0
102
Karnataka High Court
Smt Byamma W/O Thodala Paliah vs Smt Obamma W/O Late Thodala Paliah on 17 March, 2008
Author: H.G.Ramesh
W.P NO.-441-5/2008

ii "iii iii "ii " ' UTKT OF'  AT nANc+A.I.o:m

TIATETD THIS was 17?? DAYTOF MARCH 2003 ¥"'j%%_: ,

BEFORE L' 
THE-HON?-LE MR. JU8-'l'I'(3E_-.31-.1. Q.   *

gr____Rrr pm-rr1ormo,.441;5  o{1aE%;dn:§c9'e3   .~  7

BET flfiflfl :

1 SM'? BYAMMA
w,/0 THODALA PALIAH
44-YEARS   M Q

2 PALAIAI-I s/0 THoDAi.A'PAL1;§1a
24 YEARS %   

3 c-H1NNA1A'H'3jb THIQLJAQ P;'_;iA:£1~~ 
22   -    Z  

4 LAKs_Hn.1Ai:--11:10 T1-1 oIjA'LA f?PLLI1-'s}I

   

5 G EE'rHAPALIA_H
14*{EARs     %

PE'I'I'I'ILO-NERSV  ANDEARE MINORS
REP, BY MOTHER FETITEONER No.1

- _ " VPETITIRCNERS '17i"i)' 5 ARE
' ~ _ VR,ivO'BAI$I(}ARADEVARAHA'I'FY T
_ 'h  TALUK - 577 .5973 _/.PE'I'I'I"IOl\:_IERS
(BY  G R'§ImiANNA, ADV]
D'.   

 ' ' .1 " *  ._ Sm OBAMMA

'£9 _

, "Aw/o LATE THODALA PALIAH
'A 54 YEARS

'1'I-'IAMMAI.AH . %
w/o LATE THO-DALA PALIAI-I %
, 44 YEARS %



SMT PA i»"x1'v'I'I'v'IA

W] O LATE TI-IODALA PAIJAH
40 ':'Ez"\RS

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE

R/’ O BANGARADEVARAHATTI’
NAN NIVALA MAJURE

CA)

CHALLAKERE TALUK — 57-7 522 …EESP.f§E*tJD’E.N’TS

w’Ri’T’ PE’T’i’T’iON IS FILED UN.oeIt I
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION or I.NDIA PRAYIVNC:”TO_.
QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 12.1.07 AND 3‘I2ELI’1§IINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, TI-IE C_Q’J_R’1T_M£;DE’~TIriE’FOLLOWING:

.I1Ie writ died eIe.t~:….e is directed
against the and 30.03.2007
Court — the Court of
the Civiiieltidgei in the proceeding

in 1′?.;D’;P.No..V2;’ Ey the impugned order dated

:-

C
9
5

30,’_8,’20()7_. ‘the trial Ceurt ‘”2″ accepted the report

fahsfldar, relating to partitioning of the

. proj5eItiee.” By the order dated 12.1.2007, the trial

it directed the Tahsildar to submit his report

– iipeifitioning of properties as per the preliminary

‘ ‘ 1nI=:I1nno
d€CI’€€ Hi LULJI 1.370.

Ian

WV

I

W39 NO.44i.5/2008

150

F’–‘
3*
J
:

rn
r
U
3
L

-.-……

– umsel appea1″i;ng.–fol’

the petitioner and perused the impugned ord.er..

Annexure-B .

3. It is to be noticed that :r__1on:eii..ot’u”eethe’ “1:I:’1rtie_._s”=

objected to the aforesaid repo1*t_Vbei’oreV”t11e V

In my opinion, the impugne_d_”o1_’der does. _r1ot_}suji’er
the record to wa1Téint”irite1*ferer1ee under the
extraordinary of this’ Court under Articles

226 8:. 227tore:11e lbtlonstii-.:.iiio’11.ofHI3§;dia.

Petition d’ismi$:~.’~.edt__iVi”‘

Sd/3,
Tudqé

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *