WP N0.8}.14!Q008
{N THE HIGH COURT OF I{ARNA'I'AI{{;f§;"* f "
CIRCUST BENCH AT gHARwA:;~« A L
DATED THIS THE zcrrn DA?'
BEFQRE ' é ' _
THE HOIWBLE MR.J{£3';V§'I5 (3E
WRIT PET1T:}; >_'§1 Nc;i_:§';?'»'i.'1.;€?v~';»*~;$fQ5_(Ii8.(G!sA';V("QI3'(vV',V)
BETWEEN: N
THE c:HA1RMA1~T" g
i).M.LAGADAC3,'Age:at§8 YEARS, V
HAERAT SA'i'YA£fFA'i"'i'Ei_iWA.L!..
DARGA MANAG1NC:'C0MMi'I_frEE' K_.AR-':v,AR; ROAD
DARGA}{~-QERCLE, KK3§;HNM_>L'11_ ' , ='
OLD EUBLI, 31:31,: - 560021.' _ _ .. . Petitioner
(By St{:.A;--.A.VKa1¢bfid%§ie:--.
Sri. Sat€:1aha11i,"'_.Advs.)
.A é;rIAzui"<3}? KARNATAKA
VJ 33YE'§'»S'VSEC-RETARY
' ~:")EPAm*n2r;.x:T OF REVENUE
' vxafiazxm. soumm
DR, AM.t}EDIz:...eo1ning on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
. , day, the (301111: made the following:
ORDER
fFi1e f:aeTtitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the
in question. The petitioner files a suit in
‘$.53’;-‘No.36] 1996 for relief of declaration and injunction
V. V sgainst the defendants therein. The learned trial Judge has
decreed the suit as against which the 31″ ans. 3″* defendants
have filed appeals in R.A.No.33]2008 and R.A.26/2008.
WP N<:s.8114/2008
:3:
During the pendency of the appeal, Iespondez-ate’ .
make appficafions under Order 1 *
151 of the Code of Civil
come on record indicating tbejfhate
pamper parties to the I1V’t”tl’a;te’v’:a})dfi}ications,
respondents 4 and 5 have tifle to the
property and that in petitioner
cannot be ‘_a’s_;:the The said
the petitioner as Wei}
as by Judge however was of
the and proper parties to the
proceedings; _I:;ICI1(.2’C,At”il1(VfiJ’;’Cd the appiications. Aggrieved by
” . 1;he..§3i£i’e order, the is before this court.
for the petitioner submits that
back in the year 1969, a suit was filed for
V. deelarafien etc., The said suit was filed by the predecessors
‘ ‘leepondents 4» and 5 and they have been subsfituted by
” {be petitioner. Eventually, the said suit was withdrawn with
liberty to file a freeh suit. Hence, the present suit is flied.
He submits that if the respondents 4 and 5 have any”
I,
s
—–§—-j-IV
WP No.8114/2008
: 4 :
independent right, they are required to have it deciared in an
independent suit.
3. MrJ\/Iahanteshgouda, learned counsel for 1«’s.s4§c§}’.}1’CiV€:]j’t.’3′
4 and 5 submits that there is enough mate;fis}”on’ _ V’
show that respondents 4 and I the o:w3Ad1:ebrsV
property in question. He fmfther sn_bin_tts At1;:e’
appellate Judge has rightly the S V
4. ‘eotxnsel for respondent
No.3 and proper parties.
5. 4.’K.Hatti, .:{}o§iietnsnent Pleader submits that
neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4 are the owners of
‘V it is the State who is the owner of the
6. Solncof the undisputed fact appears to be that
suit was filed in the year 1969 by the predecessors
A’ ‘Ao’f”;espondents 4 and 5 for deciaration of title and certain
d ….other reliefs. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner came
on reeoxd and the predecessors of respondents 4 and 5 Werefl
/.
, 4 i
WP No-.8114/2008
: 5 :
deleted. Thereafter, the suit and the Regular Second
were prosecuted by the petitioner. Thus, to that
of the View that the petitioner has some
property. But, however, it cannotwbe’ of
time that respondents 4 and
however, What is esse13.tial”:ts:” the L’
interse between the 5 and
also that of the State tbrashed out in a
more comprehensive sm1t.- . fI’he is sought
by the 3″‘ respondent therein
and nItt’és:”al:s:> bmught to my notice that two
suits sre fiiexiiaotli for deciaration of title and for injunction
” _ of the subject matter of these proceedings as well
V sozizetotliet property.
counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits
that one;. of the suits is aiso withdrawn. Be that as it may,
A C_” “fact remains that the title to the property interse between
the parties is required to be thrashed out in a more
‘ comprehensive suit, since the title is claimed by Iespondents
4 and 5, 1 am ofthe view that they cannot be permitted tofl
WP No.81}.4/2008
:6:
come on record at the stage of appeal. I-Ience,
Judge was not justified in _’ = ,
Consequently, the following orderiivs hi ” V
The petition is ailciweda
Annexuxes-A and B stand apeheafiops filed by
respondents 4 and 5′ Iejeofion of these
applications shall not__ in the way of
respondents 5 deciaration of
title and ‘sin: property.
Rule’
Sd/-‘
]UDGE
Vvqmlv .’