Smt Uthamma W/O Late … vs R C Papireddy S/O Chinnappareddy on 17 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Uthamma W/O Late … vs R C Papireddy S/O Chinnappareddy on 17 September, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
_ 1 _
III THE HIGH 0003'!' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1773 DAY OF SEMEMEER 2008

BEFORE

mm rxou'm.m B!R.JU8'l'ICE 3.3. ?ATIIa     V
wnrr Pmrrlox xo.s899 or Q (ma-GPGIM'  A  "' u   H

;a_;.nT;;w1I§g.; 

1. Sxni. Ufnamma,
W/o late Venkataxamanna,
Aged about 58 years.

2. M.V.Sudakar Roddy,
S] 0 Uthamma,
Aged about 37 years.

Both the pefi1i£?.Ii:e:"'é?;,8Ii5     
Residingaffiawxin. AV  g 
Quartcxfis, ShiVaji11E!g£i'}  
Bangalore, V V  ...PE'l"I'TIOHER
(By Sri M.I*£axaV3xranared  . V 'dy, A§1vw'}--*pL'

          
1; 2  C;Papix1e&dy,  V ._
AS] "Raddy,
Agedaboui  years,
"  village,
--V Raya11'.md' Hobli,

 ' ~  _ LL ';~:'31fin,'wa,.ép3_3.i" Taluk.

  Raddy,
. Siam dead by LRs.

K  2 Rgispondents 2 to 5 hcrcin.

'  7 »  M.R.Bhagramma,

W/o lair: C.V.Narayana Raddy,
Aged about 35 years,



-2-

No.1, 721, Tankbund Road,
Chintamani Tcswn.

. N.Ve11katashiva Raddy,

Since dead by his LRs.

3(a) Bharathamma,
W] 0 late Venkatashiva Raddy,
Aged about 47 years.

3(b) Arun Kumar,
S / 0 late Venkatashiva Raddy,
Aged about 24 years.

3(c) Ravikumar,

S/o late Vcnkatashiva Rcddy_,_ : V.
Aged about 21 Years.    'A  '

Respondents 3(a) to 3(c)  Jrlégt '   

No.65, Mangala Main Road;  _ -
Suiehalli Cms§,*_a '4
Ramakrishna  _. . "

Near      V

Nagarabhavi, Bafigglom. '   '

.    H 

S/o late C.V.Narayana Ru:dtI3fl
Aged about 40 years',' ' '

 ~ 'No. 1  1_8*hvV%Main"'"C:'.,._' »
" '  5"' l3Idck,""Rajaji;1agar,

.  

S] 0 1&3: C.V.Na1*ayana Roddy,

Aged ab011’t.34 years,
.1′ 1 150,’ wk “C” Main,
” S91″Biao4;:k, Rajajinagar,

— 560 020.

i{ol£ithur Narayanappa,
‘ ~._S’/”ti late Kolathur Muniyappa,
{Aged about 71 years,

C] o R.Venkata1% Raddy,
Checgalabavalu village as post,

-3-

Madanapafli Manda},
Chittozr District, Andlna Pradesh. …RE8PO!lD£KTS

This Writ Petition is filed under Artie}:-‘:5 226 65 22?7′;$’f–.§i:=:

Constitution of India praying to quash the order [by time
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) as JMFC at Srinivasapur on 1′;->.. 1″1.V2() (}*,.7’;Ac>j_ii’T

11\.NO.IV in O.S.No.65] 1988 Vida: Annex1;;fc–A.

This Petition coming on for

the Ccsurt made the following-

ogx:i’a,3.__

01. In this writ petit?n?0!j,,,– ghe by the
order dated 19.11200′? (Jr.Dn.),
Srinivaspura, I.A:;l*¥t};4::’§i.lE;ti..§yV’;tiiev§§tif£ioners herein in
O.S.No.65[19f3€;Dv §g§:’tfi¢ petitioncrs under
Order I 151 are seeking to

implead ihamseivéfi’ :<icfé'I2s}i:é1:1ts¥3 and 4 in the suit.

02. 121: 11«t§et;fion-:rAcao;:ténded befom the Court belnw that

‘ §he £I11i–.’daughter’Vbf”63’1é late Kolathur Muniyappa and the 2″‘

that he is the son of the 1″ petitioner and

that bfith of were entitled to come on record to contest the

“»~«._ pmyer in than application under Section 28(1) of the

V’ Relief Act, 1963. The said application was fillsd by the

holder late C.V.Naraya_na Roddy who has obtained 5:

V , jjdacrec for specific performance of the ayeement for sale as per

the decree dated 29.38.1991. As per the said decxee respondent

J8

_ 4 ..

no.1 R.C.Papi Reddy and respondent no.6 Kolthur Narayanappa

were directed to execute the sale deed based on the aggeefrzent

for sale entered into by them in favour of late _

Raddy in respect of the suit scheduk: pmperty. _. ~ V

03. The judgnent and decree dated”1«29L§8.’TV19§?’§

finality, as the appeal filed in R§A,:Nof79] “1991

judment by respondent ne.1 – Recidy Way
back on 08.10.1993. ptnoceedings in
‘:3’..P.No. 105/1998 game teem; deczee holder.
Upon the deatlycif €b._(é.1dee£,jj&zeef>§jiidents-2 to 5 herein
came on as the legal
represent:-@vee.A 1 hultler. However, the said
execution holding that the nemetiy for

the decree ho1t’1 er..vw’as” ineroke Section 28(1) of the Specific

£10; to execution proceedings. As a result

under Section 28( 1) came to be fled by

‘ the Iepzee’en{afives of iate C.V.Narayana Reddy, the decree

– . jg ‘ ..E;_t:»lder.

the pendency of this application, the present
VT -epetitioners filed the application seeking to be impleaded as

} V’ tedciitional defendants. They contended that the suit schedule

fiér

.. 5 ..

as they are perhaps set up by respondents-1 to 6 whqhave

sufiemd a decree. If the petitioners have any right

property in question, it is for them to establish .

pmcaedings appropriately in mgaztiv’ ” 2

seeking to be impleaded as adcutiongg dgfeégzéiéintxs-..’ih

which has aftready been decreed and__whiéI1v_’Iiias v

‘I’h:;-trefone, then: is no merit in Htfince, the
A H
‘ ” % .Tudg”é’

PKS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *