THIS WRIT PETITION 18 $11.39 UNDER AR'I'Ir;«;';T ..-AT'TT»f1't11v§;<u'1::"%LA--x(i'13E
ANNEX. E AND ETC. ,
THIS WRIT PE'I'ITIOI~E COM£NC;()::..!V'i'FOR 'I.' i¥%§IS'aVVVDAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOL_L.fOWINQ:------ _ "
The chaIlen.g.c{;in_ is the order dam
21.3.2003? Judge, (Jr. D11.)
Tumkur. I.A.No. 13 med by the
mspondefit' the petitioner herein as
additional En;:fc1;da;1tVVV?\i_
than the husband of the has evftdence for
and on behalf of the 2. The purchase
is allegedly made in the nan§ge_ of
8. In of gelief in the suit, which
makes it Clea; that is sought against the
defendantiav, servants from interfering with
the plaintigffo and enjoyment, if the property
is pendency in the name of the wife of the
of. holder of the defendants, it cannot be said'
the: of did not contimze against the petitioner.
Tlieovdeoision relied upon by the learned counsel for the
the case of Smtlgkshmamma and others Vs.
It and others arises under diifetent set of facts and
T Paragraph 4 of the said judgment makes it clear
V Respondents 2 to 6 who were claiming tight in respect of
difierent portion of schedule property were held entitled to
protect their right, title and possession by
and appropniatc pmcecdings in {Be
present case, the fiacts are totally ciifl’éi’::;1ii;.
10. The juciment relied lay the; for
the petitioner in me 200 1′: KAR no to the
fiacfs of the present case. that has
taken place after . of .§he’«$;f’;fif~ m5,;1fing in the ssh: in
flavour of the holder of defendants 1
and 2 There is no dispute
mganiing }_t’11£:1*c any dispute regarding the
fact that the .§f’A§léfsr§i1dant/pefifioncr was representing
the’, as of attorney holder. In such
jud%ent relied upon by the counsel for the
KAR 312 has also no appl%n to the
Vvfacts ofihc piéseiizt case.
A u » Iji’.«.._T1:V:’e1t:fom, the order passw by the Court bciow is just
‘V and Hence, there is no need tbr intcrfemncc. The petition
‘ V . _ _ VT dismissed. Safijw
§?;:§g%
JL