HC-KAR IN THE HIGH C DATED THIS THE HON'BLE WRIT PETIT BETWEEN: DR. JOSEPH.V.G. SON OF GEORGE AGED ABOUT 63 CHAIRMAN M/S. EDUCATIONTRUS OFFICE AT NO. INDIRANAGAR I (BY SRI. MANJUN AND: 1. PAULINA WIFE OF MA AGED ABOUT 2. YESURAJ SON OF MAR AGED ABOUT 3. FRANKLIN SON OF MAR AGED ABOUT NC: 2026 WP No. 2202 -1- H COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BEN HIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, BEFORE 'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA TITION NO. 22027 OF 2022 (GM V.G. RGE VAYALIL, 63 YEARS, /S.GARDEN CITY RUST, O. 340, 5THMAIN, R I STAGE, BENGALURU-560038. …PET JUNATH.K.V.,ADVOCATE) MARIA SELVAN, BOUT 65 YEARS, MARIA SELVAN, BOUT 40 YEARS, MARIA SELVAN, BOUT 35 YEARS, 026:KHC:6392 2027 of 2022 BENGALURU RY, 2026 TA GANJU GM-CPC) …PETITIONER HC-KAR 4. PETER SON OF MAR AGED ABOUT RESPONDEN RESIDING A METTUKALA KATPADI, VE ALSO RESID BOSCO NAG K R PURAM 5. RAYAMMA WIFE OF LAT SINCE DEAD THE RESPON LR’S OF THE ALREADY ON 6. NIRMALA WIFE OF RA AGED ABOUT 7. SUSAIRAJ SON OF LAT AGED ABOUT 8. ANTHONY JO SON OF ANT AGED ABOUT 9. ANTONY GIL SON OF ANT AGED ABOUT NC: 2026 WP No. 2202 -2- MARIA SELVAN, BOUT 30 YEARS, DENT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE G AT NO.105, ALAM PERPPUDUR POST, , VELLORE-632059. SIDING AT NO.155, NAGAR, T C PALYA, AM POST, BENGALURU-560036. LATE ANTHONY, EAD BY LR’S PONDENT NO.6 & 7 ARE THE RESPONDENT NO.5 ARE Y ON RECORD. RAYAPPA, BOUT 55 YEARS, LATE ANTHONY, BOUT 38 YEARS, Y JOHNSON ANTHONY RAJ, BOUT 40 YEARS, GILBERT ANTHONY RAJ, BOUT 35 YEARS, 026:KHC:6392 2027 of 2022 HC-KAR 10. JONAS SON OF INA AGED ABOUT RESPONDEN RESIDING A BOSCO NAG PALYA,K.R. BENGALURU (BY SRI. S.KUMA SRI. PRITHIV R9-SERVED; SUFFICIENT R6 & R7 ARE THIS WP I CONSTITUTION ORDER DATED DISTRICT AND DISTRICT,BENGA ANNEXURE-A.QUA PASSED BY THE DISTRICT,BENGA AS PER ANNEX ALLOW I.A.NO.I PENDING ON JUDGE,BENGALU THIS PETIT DAY, ORDER WAS CORAM: HON'BLE NC: 2026 WP No. 2202 -3- INASAPPA, BOUT 35 YEARS, DENTS NOS 5 TO 10 ARE G AT NO 155, NAGAR.T.C. .R.PURAM POST, URU-560036. …RESPO UMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; THIVARAJ.R., ADVOCATE FOR R7 & 1 ED; NOTICE TO R6 & 8 ARE HELD NT V/O DTD:11.11.2025; ARE TREATED AS LR’S OF DECEASED P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 ON OF INDIA, PRAYING TOQUASH ED 28.09.2022 PASSED BY THE P ND SESSIONS JUDGE,BENGALURU NGALURU IN M.A.NO.18/2020 .QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11 HE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE,BENGALUR NGALURU ON IA NO.II IN OS.NO. NEXURE-B AND FURTHER BE PLEA O.II,AS PRAYED FOR IN OS.NO. ON THE FILE OF II AD ALURU RURAL DISTRICT,BENGALURU ETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GA 026:KHC:6392 2027 of 2022 ESPONDENTS & 10; SED R5) 227 OF THE UASHING THE E PRINCIPAL URU RURAL 0 AS PER 11.07.2019 LURU RURAL NO.680/2016 PLEASED TO NO.680/2016 ADDL.CIVIL RU. DERS, THIS GANJU HC-KAR 1. The presen dated 28.09.202 Principal Distric District, Bengal “Impugned Orde which was filed 11.07.2019 in application unde 1908,has been d 2. The challen concurrent findin learned Appellat injunction. This passed a directio use and nature o remained in exist 3. Learned co not disputed th NC: 2026 WP No. 2202 -4- ORAL ORDER esent petition seeks to challenge .2022 in M.A.No.18/2020 passed trict & Sessions Judge, Bengalu ngaluru [hereinafter referred to rder”]. By the Impugned Order, a filed seeking to challenge the ord in O.S.No.680/2016 which reje nder Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of dismissed. allenge in the present petition i indings of the learned Trial Court ellate Court dismissing the applic is Court by its order dated 17.11. ection to maintain status quo with r re of the subject property and this existence till today. counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has a share in 026:KHC:6392 2027 of 2022 ge an order sed by the galuru Rural to as the r, an appeal order dated rejected an of the CPC, n is to the ourt and the plication for .11.2022 had ith respect to his order has its that it is in the suit HC-KAR schedule proper restraining the possession and e 4. The report and 4 have rem address. Learne the respondent and 4 who is phy 5. Learned co respondent Nos.2 the Trial Court ei 6. Learned co there was a part se the parties in Court. The parti as well as the re the preliminary proceedings are NC: 2026 WP No. 2202 -5- operty. However, he has filed a the defendants from interfering nd enjoyment of the suit schedule pr ort of the Registry is that responde remained unserved since they have arned counsel for the petitioner sub nt No.1 is the mother of responde physically present before the Court. counsel for respondent No.1 sub os.2 and 4 are not being represent rt either. counsel for the respondents sub partition suit which was filed previou s in O.S.No.743/2001 before the lea arties to the partition suit were the e respondents. He further submits ary decree was passed, the fina are being adjourned on accoun 026:KHC:6392 2027 of 2022 a suit for ring in the e property. ondent Nos.2 have left the submits that ondent Nos.2 urt. submits that sented before submits that viously inter- learned Trial the petitioner its thatafter final decree ount of the HC-KAR petitioner filing r counsel for the r the petitioner property. 7. This Court O.S.No.1665/200 02.07.2010. Th following: “The suit of decreed with It is hereby 1/12th share It is further d defendants 1 and any oth share of the As a matter defendant No defendant proceedings. The suit in O No cost. Draw prelimin 8. The petit 9th defendant in NC: 2026 WP No. 2202 -6- g repeated applications. However he respondents does not dispute the has sold a portion of the suit urt has perused the judgment p /2004 connected with O.S.No.743/20 The order and judgment sets of the plaintiff in O.S.No.743/2001 is h ith cost. eby declared that the plaintiff is entitle hare in the suit ‘A’ schedule property. er declared that the sale deeds executed b ts 1 to 8 in favour of the defendant No.1 other alienation are not binding on the plaintiff. tter of equity, the property sold in favo t No.9 is ordered to be allotted to the sha nt 1 to 8 during the final de gs. in O.S.No.1665/2004 is hereby dismis liminary decree accordingly”. [Emphasis supp etitioner before this Court t in the suit in O.S.No.743/2001. T 026:KHC:6392 2027 of 2022 ever, learned the fact that suit schedule t passed in 3/2001 dated ets out the is hereby titled to ed by the o.1 to 9 on the favour of share of decree smissed. supplied] rt is the . The order HC-KAR states that the p is directed to be to 8. The res entitled to 1/12 deeds executed respondents 1 to respondent/plain property sold in to be allotted to final decree. 9. It is not d respondents O.S.No.743/2001 properties, whic Court. The suit reproduced below All that piece No. 61 conv bearing No. Bhattarahalli NC: 2026 WP No. 2202 -7- he property sold in favour of Defend be allotted to the share of Defenda respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.74 /12th share in the property and that ted by respondents 1 to 8 in f 1 to 9 will not be binding on the sha laintiff. In addition, it sets out in favour of the petitioner/defendan to the share of defendant 1 to 8 d ot disputed by the learned counse that the decree as pas 001 is qua both suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ hich is set out in the petition be schedule A and schedule B prop elow. “SCHEDULE A PROPERTY ce and parcel of land measuring 2 acres nverted vide order of the Deputy Commis o. BDS: ALN (E) SR:21/2002-03, situa lli Village, Bidaranalli Hobli, Bengaluru Eas 026:KHC:6392 2027 of 2022 fendant No.9 endant Nos.1 o.743/2001is that the sale in favour of share of the ut that the ndant No.9 is 8 during the unsel for the passed in ‘B’ schedule before this roperties are es in Sy. issioner uated at ast taluk, HC-KAR out of total described as Item No. 1 1 acre 20 gun East by: Priva West by: Chi North by : Pri South by: 28 Item No. 2: 20 guntas of East by: Priva West by: Rem North by: 28 South by: Th All that piece land in Sy. BidarahalliHo described as East by: Land West by: A. S North by: Roa South by: Lan 10. Thus clear respondents as w a separate proce this petition is d final demarcation NC: 2026 WP No. 2202 -8- al of 3 acres 19 guntas which is mo as follows: untas bounded on: rivate Property hinnaswamappa and Puttappa's land Private Property 8 Feet Road of land bounded by: rivate Property emaining part of Sy. No. 61 8 feet road homas's property SCHEDULE B PROPERTY ce and parcel of land measuring 8.2 gun y. No. 61 situated at Bhattarahalli V Hobli, Bengaluru East taluk which is mo as follows: nd belonging to Kiritappa . Susairaj's Property oad and Garden City College Property and belonging to Thomas” clearly, the decision on the share as well as the petitioner are to be d roceeding. Given this aspect of the disposed of with a direction that ation and allotment of shares is de 026:KHC:6392 2027 of 2022 morefully untas of Village, morefully hares of the be decided in f the matter, that until the s decided by HC-KAR the Trial Court in to title, possessi by all parties qua 11. All pending SNB/YN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 NC: 2026 WP No. 2202 -9- rt in FDP proceedings,status quo wit ession and construction shall be m qua suit schedule A and B properties ding applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJ JUDGE .: 3 026:KHC:6392 2027 of 2022 with respect e maintained rties. ANJU) Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA