High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Savithramma vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 6 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt Savithramma vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 6 December, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 06"' DAY OF DECEMBER,  ~.
BEFORE A A

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE>S.ABDUi;i§A;Z:EEfRv 

WRIT PETITION No.34932  ::'?;0'1°0 (TOM-1{'EDu) « .  .

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT SAVITHRAMMA
W/ O. THAMMAYAEWA .  _4
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS   ' A

SMT SHANKUNTHAI,..A,MMA . 
W/O.LATE.:MUNIR§ATHNAM_4 
AGED ABOCETF-68 YEARS" " 
BOTH ARE REs1--D.1NG'.'jAT.R.O. 13, 
sL_;EBA:\;NA~::..I51A12.,_DANE " . 
;2ND"CR.C'vSS,  _ 
13AN__OALORE._53A  " -- . ...PEI'ITIONERS

{BY.Si7{I,MAHEVlS»H R"E:;}'1>1i§, ADV.)

 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

A  _AND'  MANAGER {E1}

 A. W3"sDE.D;vIs1ON, BESCOM
' MAOA1;w'ROAD, BANGALORE 560 023

A  JAGADISH

S/.O.LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY

"  AOE MAJOR, R/O.NO.14,

 SUBBANNA CHAR LANE,
2ND CROSS, CO'I'I'ONPET.

BANGALORE 560 053 .. RESPONDENTS

(BY SR} N K GUPTA, ADV. FOR R1 }

..2_

THIS WRIT PE’I’I”i1ON Is FILED UNDER ARTICLE 225 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO Q:;ASH.f1’i~1E
ORDER DATED 18.10.2010 PASSED BY THE”. ‘SECCi~ND
RESPONDENT MARKED AS ANNEXURE-K . u ._ 0′ 3 .

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON

DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ”

I have heard the’.1earr1de’d’€’otI.riSe1 for thedxparties.

2. T he peti_tionerS”oiairngtodhe owners and in

p0SS€SSi0;’1″ -.._su’itfV~ Hsehedule property.

It is th:ew..:vpetit,ion’erS that originally the

property ” d One Narasirnha Murthy.

Narasimhia_VhhM1,1rt.h4Vyi._soI.d’ the said property in favour of

Ja.rfa1gan1rna. hddanaiikamma died issueless. Therefore,

‘ the-V.p1″opert§:f’devolved upon her husband G.Kannaiah.

had executed a Will bequeathing the

property in favour of the petitioners. The meter

installed in the premises in question stood in the name

G.Kannaiah, who is no more. The 2″” respondent

also claims title to the said property. It is his case that

it

.. 3 _
his father Narasimha Murthy had not executed any sale

deed in favour of Janakamma and he has

the property after the death of his fatherfiiiltv

dispute that a suit filed by the :petitioner_s

in respect of the said propertgdzflipsl’-pending1’before'”the.,

Civil Court. The 1st respondent haslissuehd order as

per Annexure–K dated. ‘1r.;-pcordingwdvvthe name
of the original owner’ the electrical
installation pr’operty—-in question.
__Hai?irig..V_heardl”learned Counsel for the parties, I
am oflthje-view’ the suit in respect of the

roi lertv in uestion is endin between the etitioners
P. . Cl .. _ _ 13 P

thc.p.,’?txj”c;,r’espondent, they have to await the decision

The installation shall be transferred to

name of the successful party in the suit. Till then, it

2 ddisgpust and proper to continue the installation in the

Alnarne of the original owner G.Kannaiah. The power

C supply shall not be disconnected to the installation in

question pending disposal of the suit subject to

5′
iii

_ 4 _
payment of energy charges. A11 the cont.¢i1tio.ns

regarding the title of the property are keptpV.o_peV1§_.’4e:4fffie

writ petition stands disposed of accordin’g1y:Z”E:\Io ‘ K

“SD$Ett

KLY/