High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri V Selvakumar vs Smt Jayalakshmamma on 31 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri V Selvakumar vs Smt Jayalakshmamma on 31 August, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
-   1%"/::*;. VVK~.SreedVHaéE Associates, Advs.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN(3ALORE

DATED THIS THE 31" DAY OF AUGusT';"2'o.Io[j    _

BEFORE A
THE HON'BE.E MR. JUSTICE A.N.f_VEN.{}AGOPA.LA"G'O'WI§A».be T

WRIT PETITION NO.2254S'/zjozo (oskgcpégj)  

BETWEEN:

Sri V.SeEvakt.E:*T1'aI'_,   _  I 
S/O. Sri T.V_iVsw';?IArIatlf1;'-major,    
Represented 4.by--R.hE-s '     '
Power OfVaxttO__r'n_ey :'--+o-met, ._ " 
Sri Mv.--G--..JaTganaf%I_.,»w.  .. 
S/O.:_Eate GoiJ.i.ndawraju4,'~.__ _ _
Agedaa b'ou'c 63' years,'   _
R/0. No.33, 1'?._Main,._"---«.  
Vinayaka«.Nagar,._ A _' 
Bangajore --v-.S60"030.

 '  I  PETITIONER

 Smt. .."l.7313A/Talakshmamma,
W/'O. Papanna Reddy,

 I _ Aged about 60 years.

  ..u5Sri G.P.Venkatesh Babu,

S/O. Papanna Reddy,
Aged major.

3. Sri G.P.Jagadish Reddy,
S/o. Papanna Reddy,
Aged major.



4. Sri Krishna Reddy,
S/o. Venkatappa,
Aged major.   

Respondents 1 to 4 are

R/o. Garuve Bhavipaiya;

Begur i-iobli, ”

Bangalore South Taiuk. ‘

5. Sri Munirama Red.dy., _ _
S/o. Sri Munivenka’fap’pae,._.7′
Aged about 67 years»; V _ _ * _ —

R/o. DoddaT.hog;.1r viliage,’=..f–,_ ‘ *
Bangal”ore._S-o~u–th’Tal_uFrakash T.Hebbar,
Advs. for R1 t’ofR_3 g _
Sri M.”M_ahadevap.pa,}_ “for R5)

x§tent, hassailjowved the said
application in part an.d’:t«-hasI_VfotdAe’red,to.yframe an issue with
regard to the title ofttheplailntiff -Vendor. This writ

petition is atgain._s”txth:é order.

.,|i-lea’rd:’1ii;:the’*.l.e’arnAed’~c~o”unsel on both sides and

perus._ed”‘ the ” ‘

~ 3. Sélin-cethe is one for declaration of title and

.¢iVnjunlc’tion;.the plainftiff has to establish his right to the suit

lawful possession and enjoyment of the

fsa..me,g ‘Thfecalling upon of the plaintiff to prove the title of

n his y’e.–ndor is unnecessary. The Trial Court has to delete

it part of the additional issue with regard to the plaintiff

being called upon to prove the titie of his vendor. Only to

the said extent, the impugned order calls for interference.

V2

In the result, writ petition stands allowed.

order stands modified. I.A.8 stands allowed,~in..A4t’hat;::the

issue which is required to be raised at

plaintiff has acquired lawful title,»toi__suit Vgfirolpertyiyi’ it

Ordered accordingly,