High Court Karnataka High Court

Susheel Kumar vs The City Municipal Council on 11 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Susheel Kumar vs The City Municipal Council on 11 January, 2010
Author: B.S.Patil
'WP 22739 /2009

IN 'I'I'~II%I HIGH CC)UR"I" OF KAI5'3]\?A'_i'AKA AT ESANGAIJORE

I)A"I'Ii1II) 'I'HIS '1'!--IE 1 W DAY 01%' JANUARY, 29    2 V

1:3 EFO RIC

T1--11+: 1-~ioN'B1,1:~: MRJ 1;s'm:'1<: B S. I5-7iA'1';1; j"  ]

WRIT PETITION No.22739}'2oi§9" tLBéRj§s}

BETWEEN:

1.

3.

Sri Si1S11€('.] K11m.2.11'.
Ag€(§ about 68 years. . 
S/0 late Sn' Me}"1a1"('ET1a11c1.'*-_ 

Sri Nanda I{isI:'101'e,V_   
Aged aboui. 65 y<:2}1's;._' 
S/0 late Sri Me:_1"12a1E;_1:rarrrTi. 

S1'iB§']é11'£1U1€B1'}l.)i'.§i"';'}1'1..'"' . I "
Aged about 62.yé:11=;u1. «$7 yea.1'S,'" """ 
819 late fitji ME1f1211'(?§'1&11'1(i

'--S1'i«.TE}:_,1111iv¥. Ki 11"1'1;'!.q.1j"; V . 

A§,§<%C%'w€i1).1" n{>.i S1.1s;I1§ Kumzlr

» A _'  <}}?«_1<'1e2*.

'  A31 are 1'/ 211. N0.9O2._ {SW Cross.

 , _'vS_'3.-'El1'I1é11}agé1I". R013e1*t;ss()1:pe31.

 Kern 553 1.22.

 '(BY .53:-'<1 Ar>1 R§93IZ)E.)Y'. A%)V.}

 PETE'i'IC)NEERS



WP 22739/200$-}

AND:

'I'I'1e City M2.11':icip;I1l (.302..1m'i§.
R0!_>01'is0n1.)m. K.(',}.I-'.. ; 
R("]3I'€:'S€¥'}[.f3(l§ by its (3(}1'1'11':_':is-ss§c>m=:'.  RESP(I)NIDE}\§' 117" 

THIS PI9:'m'I0N IS FILED UNDER AR'1'1(:LI«:s0.f;;2:2,6_fif=*P}3i«B:' 
CONS'I'I'Ii'U'1'1()N OF INDIA PRAYENG TC) I)IRE(2'i' 'I'H_I__'£ 'i2Es£>_0Nr;£«:N£9 ~.1j{}~1A'I'H.A_ AND-vsU.B's{;QUr5N'1'=

REMINDECRS.

'II'H.IS PE-7I'I'I'1C)N COMING; ()N0=F(')R1jFR£§L.I_MINA¥{Y'1--iEAR1NG 'B'
GROUP. '1"1«-115 DAY, *m1«: COU.RT MAE) 1:; '}'.HE_F()I;{,_DWEN(}:

1. In {hiS'"\.x«':7ii}ipetflé0:2,"p01:i1'.i0:'10i'éare s(:*.t., K.G.F.

  2, 'ARéssp01"1tiéI1f1E0i~Cir'y ML1I'1i(Yi})E11 Council. R0be:1'£.s0r1pe1,

 ' f§,G.F.. t:}1.0ug.}1 serveci. {here is no represe1'1t.21t.'i0n.

  the (2130 of "£116 p<;é1,it,1'0r1e1's that though may have

 "m21.CiC 21 z'c%;)res<?n1.aii()11 to the 1'e:=3p0ndent. rec;L.zes1,ing for 'u'z11'1sf<%:'

  khzltha in their £.'av0m' in respccct" 0i'1,h<-3 p1'0p<:~1":.y er1CI0si:'1g the

%/



WP 2 2 739 / 2099

eopies of the regist.ered sale deeds. showing that t.}1.e§*-.»l1e1v'e
pU.1'Ch&'1S€d the ;:)mpe1'[.y in question. no action   the

respondent to t.:'ans£'e,=: the liter;-H11;-1 in their names.

4. Learned Counsel for the petit’ie,ner:.de1fzi\vt–ng ..tt1′–e. .é’1~t:”t:E;’_’r);’t’:S}’)I-‘1

of the Court to the jL1dgmem’ _1’V€:’I1.(‘_it3}’€€31V'”§’_)V}”‘”H18 11

District, Judge, Kofar, in rz_A.i\t”‘o.t._et3/19é§’e;-.fin’ 3:13.03.1994,

submits that in respect 0it:’4″‘t:1_1e suit was
inst.itut’ed by one the sale
deeds executed in The said suit
was decreed. iearrzed 11 Addl. District
Judge that the plaintiflf failed
to estzlbtiesh “f.:hEV{L were the result of fraud

n has been taken. In these CiII'()L11’1″lSt,aI1C€S,

‘ ;AA3eteit_ic)r1erS have approached this Cotart.

Upon hearing the Iezztmed Cotmsei for the pet.itioner amcl

6r1 perusal of the materiais on record. I find that the

r ,sp()11dem,»CiEy tVII,.11″}iCif)E’1I C0L.:rte1′.l cnxghtfl to have eonsideaed the

W?” 22739/ 2009

1″ep1’eser11.ations sL1bmii1.eCI by the pc:1i1.i()ners zmd 1;1.1<e1:}"':i1r1

in 2-1cc.0rda:1ce with law, liccépimg in mind me l’€g.i.SJ?f?IE€”d’>.S21’E€

deeds and 1.110 judgr11er2%: 1′:311cie1’€2(1 by the Ci\’iI”‘«.C2()i.l’fi..VH1′ V’

I'{eg1,1}ar Appeal. Faiitlrt? E0 do so ez)~E21’i’is-«:’1 d’i1*ecii_dr1′._i71’017i1 “1}1is

COU.E”é’l.

E3. H€?I1(‘.C’.. this writ. pe’:.1’i.i(m TE:::2:_uj*e?§>;3(;tf;(1em~Ci§y
Municipal Councii is re;;1;éé{%11t21iio1’1 of
the petitioners and pass with
law after 1’1(>i.ii’yi:;g”$}:%:* expediiiously as
possible. at a?f1L\Vr Vtwo months from the
date of :’e:r;é’éjiMp”1 H

Sdf *
Judge

‘a

“3<1<»