Sri Balappa Since Dead By His Lrs vs M/S Homeland Resorts Pvt Ltd on 28 May, 2009

(By Sri : JAVAKGMAR s’.PA”fiL.%.
Sri : K N oAv.a.;.u A28 FQRR1
Sri : S.\i.PRAKAS_HFOR 33,5 75; 10~A, :1 &13 T016)

THIS w.P. E2259 ramvtma QUASH THE ORDER DT. 9.4.2oce PASSED ma
Mfi.NQ.10E5!200£’;—VEDE ANNEX;’J.”BY THE F’R|NCtPA1_ own. JUDGE (SRDM)
BANGALQRE RURAL 4E3!«$TRICT, BANGALORE.

wr-=

_ s r:3c;%:=i,V1:’>*;:-:”A.1:; BY HIS ms

” . sna*r–L:ij.:..v BA£.APPA

% ‘ was LATE. BALAPPA
V .. .5350 ABOUT 62 YEARS,
FVAT NO ma
\. ‘ spmo VELLA, KAMMANAHALLE MA%N ROAD
R s PALYA, BANGALORE – 34

J2 MRS (ll-XTHELINE N CHETTY
was NEOL caem
was ABOUT as YEARS

fife’, ,. ..f;_M?’\,W/

9.:-.1.”

AND I

WAT DAMK 4–se–e
KAMINOEGE, SETA13YA– KV
TOKiYO15–800~93 .

JAPAN

MR ARUL BALAPPA
so BALAPPA V
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ” >
R/AT NO 35/’61, KOOYONGE ROAD
ARMADALE, V§CTOF¥lA — 3143
AUSTRALIA ..

Nos. 2 & 3 ARE REPT BY TH¥R G E’ A.’HcLDg;R- _
SMTLILLY BALAPPA, wxo L. “TE–¥3ALAPPA V
AGES 62 YEARS. « je § _

F2/AT NQ108, SAX’/lO\§.fi’L1.A,V KANEMAN_A.’~+
MAIN ROAD, R;S.PAL’#’.1;V_BAhK.=AtQR’E. ._

VA V % % ..PETlTl0NERS
(av saw Zvi-i\}.’sR::ii:s:As}§ Aovf V

ws HG%1ELANE> PVT LTD
A OQ?éiPAN’r’ REGlS?EFiEDUNDER THE

” “CEOMPANEES ACT, HAVINI3 rrs

REG.iSTEF*1ED–QFFlCE AT NC 30?

IIi”FLC)OR;-MBC’1.34;..INFANTRY RQAD

i-3Ab~x3AL€3R£’~:~.56a
BY Us DIRECTOR SMT MEENAKSHI

; THE SEQRETARY

‘NEr%ALu+3_r3t=zAM PANCHAYATH
A -Ars:E:=sA:,.:3n ANEKAL TALUK
“-BANGALORE RURAL DiSTF§£CT

SHE: RAMA REDDY
_ -V are LATETHimr1ABAYA REDDY
” A , AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

SHRI VENKATESH REOGY
S/O RAMA REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS L%

.._..g? 2,?

(a) SMTPRABHAVATHI
w/o LATE VENKATESH REDIDY

(2) KUMMCJNIKA
D10 LATE VENKATESH REDDY %

(C) KUMPOOJA
D10 LATE VENKATESH REDDY

NOS.(B) 3. (C) ARE MINORS REPr=9+<ES'§%:Ir-mo " A
av THEIR MOTHER (A) AS THE LEGALAND

NATURAL. GUARCHAN AND ALL ARE'*¥'2E3!Dl?=éG AT a ' '

YAGAVANAHALIJ VILLAGE-' A'~ET¥8_ELEE_ Hos3i..I, '~– . _

ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE D3.S'TB!f3fE'. '–

sun: MUNIREDDY $.20 RAMA'?§:=.j9Dv A
smog DEOEASEE"BY1~H|S _ -.

(a)eowaAMw; _ _ « 4_ ”

wxo mm-MLrmrVHEa–pv, ‘gym _ ‘

SHRI GQLLA E>£afi)*fifj % ,
S/0 THFMMARAYA F§EU–£)’1′ ” ” ”
AGED ABOUT50 YEA8S’ _ v

sHR,:.,;lA*m.cmNmA’REo{:v

” ‘. ‘ ….. ..’

Aaggmaojur 44;; YEARS

«szésa i’H:.§fif»1A’r§4*.’.§;~’REDDv

so Gum Rgoisv
Asap Aacmf 37 YEARS

2 ..SHRi Rim/’w<wAR
. SAOQULLA BEDDY
V. A _P»,£3'uE-I[)'~ABOUT 32 YEARS

Sm; EDBALA REDDY

, LATE THSMMAPAYA away
~ SiNCE DECEASED BY HFS ms

11

” (a) sum PUTTAMMA w/0 OBALAREDDY

AGED MAJOR,

SHRF NANJA REDDY
S30 OBALA REDDY

‘E2

13

14

15

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

SHHI YELLAPPA REDDY S/O LATE
THEMMARAYA REDDY : ‘
SiNGE DECEASED BY HFS {BS

(6) SHRI SHIVAPPA REDDY
S/U YALLAPPA HEDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

(b) SHRI RAMESH REDDY % Q_ %
S20 YELLAPPA REDDY .% _ –.

AGEDABOUT45YEARS T
8HRfSHlVAP£’£z.REDDY;_ A
SIOYELLAPPAF-EDDY ”

A

sHnnr2gAb;;Ese4.V%’ReLi2p_\( _
S/O vELLAPP,AfR_ED€:v’ I
AGEDABQUT 45- ~

sw swam M V _ ”

wro LATE CHIKKA ABBAIAH ‘BEDDY
@ MUN:-VREDEBY szo LATE THIMMARAYA REDDY

_ & Aaamxsour as _

is.

SHRi”KR|SR.NA’REsDY

%s2m.;ATE~r.:H:Ks». BLED PRAYiN{3 TO ouAsr_é THEA’oHt1Es=?iADT.”2s;s;éc:oé’

PASSED IN O,8.NO.3-47/1998 ViDE ANNE)<.Q."'-B'f"–. THE F"RIN€}|F'AL

JUDGE (JR.DN,) BANGALORE RURAL DiST_HICT,'L3A!\$ALOF3Efi… A V' '

These petitions coming on for pre4!ii'h:.ir)a:y vfiroup this
day, the court made the fonowing: * ' " "

03 %%D'vE'_gf7f' _

First respondent.vin:oo1h olairrfifi. Petifioners and
ofiwer respondentsi. Trial Court in
O.S.No.347/19_9fi..rV d:§fia%e.»i:sA–rJ<%J.,s»:.§:~4o.3471199s against the
defendants infunction restraining them from
interfering with rand enjoyment of me schedule
property ar"x§fLtr';her 8%' defendant from transferring khatha in
fa'§goE»or.1jr"5@qér¢n§ran:. ourerag the pendency of the suit me plaintiff filed
IAJ & 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction.

A'gTF'!a5ntiff also to restrain the 18"' defendant from transferring

' ''§%h£;:!ifa'*qf rm :;cn.~$dme property in favour of the 17'" defendant. At me firs!

V rial Court granted an exparte order of temporary Enjuncfion,

. the 1?" defendant filed LA.4 to vaoate me exparie interim

r:_:iordor'granted on LA! and M2. i.A.9 is filed under Order 7 Ruie 11(3) &

(5; CPO for rejection of me plaint. The Triai Court aw: hearing both the

fwekf

5.. .2″,

parties passed 3. common order on 23.10.2002. reiecting LM, 2 _

aliowed I.A.4 and vacated the exparte intetim order. this” >

order of the Trial Court. the plaintiff fited M.A.H_o.1Q6i2oo2

LowerAppeBate Court. The Lower Aptaeflaseu coomfier hegrmgioopém ”

parties passed the impugned order anIowit§§=§i§.A.:5ao.1csi2co2, égt oside
we order of the Triai Court and i:o7rr:porar’y%V’ih§i}f1ction in
favour of me plaintiff. Aggrieved Appellate
Court aesandams have pogo; me pendoncy of
mo writ petition the on 26.8.2006 restraining
the detendano scheduae properties and further
directed the ;u.asa:¢aona; the order passed by me
Lower Courton by the order on M26 dated
A ta! police to imptement the order on |.A.I

2a.ga;2oos dsreczsfig the iufi§1L§§w.,.i._,
fine i”:a ve \_N.P.NO.1444’5I2006.

Z _ 2. Heard V_;:«’:.rg1’1V7r.ii,r’:éVr3$ on both me side and mruoed me entire unit

mom that defiendans 1 to 16 are the owners of

V. ‘Vfv._Vsci1o:o!ii§«é[propeny and may exeouted an agreement of saie on 29.2.1992

in of Mis. Giripriya Enxerpfims. In pan mrfoo of agreement

of sale me defendants 1§o 16 have delivered possession of me piaint

aw

schedule property in favour of M/s. Giripriya Enterprises and

executed an irrevocabie Genera! Power of Attorney. Subseduenjiefl _

piaintiff purchased the scheduie property from C

under a registered sate dwd dated 20.2.1998fl:end::iEi’te§;'”ere’: in

and enjoyment of the same. on flregother hand; the vdefen;da”nt’V”~ay

contends that he has purchased scheddtie propeit:,r_ sornemof the
defendants under a registered ‘iseie The Lower
Appellate Court on appreciation of documentary

evidence concluded thet’Vsaie feeoor .pieirrtifi was eariier to the

sate in favourivoifhihe C renew Appeiiate Court further
noticed the fac’t”thet«’the have parted Pfissession of the
schedule propertyin oftire ‘iJiis.Giripriya Enterprises as earty as in
‘year Tm icowe–r.—-.A’ppetEate Court further noticed that fine

*vhave:_’noi-pierxed any eviderrw to show that as to when and

:”W_.__h,ow the3r”reposs.V A fire scheduie property from MIs.Giripriye

tnititevabsence of any such evidence on record, the Lower

‘ rightiy conciuded mat plaintiffs are in possession and

the scheduie property and may are entitied for protection.

finding of fine Lower Appeiiate Court is in accordance with the

and the documentary evidence on record. I find no justifiabie

%

4:?”

ground to interfere with the impugned order passed

Appeitate Court.

4. in. order to promo! the tntereezi Mef ‘beth’~._tt1e

necessary to preserve the nature and cha:’acte’r__ot’ttte sctzefdgtie

Further a direction is required to be to Tritai’-(}.eurt:’toRé%iVefisse the

matter expeditiously.

5. For the reasons stated :i)ott1:tV”ti?i;e_.”__g_’;,.;tt petitions are

disposed of with a dtrefin toirfittlib ‘dispose the suit as

expedttiousiy everti not later than six months from
the date of receipteftcepj; of ‘rm the dtspcea! of the suit, the
pletntifflreepgenctent rteft stfieti net: make any construction or develop on flue

tfitztered accordingty.

Sdl-1
Iudge

T “eke;