AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B M Shyam Prasad, J
ORDER ON I.A.NO.2/2023
The present application is filed by the first respondent for modification of this Court’s order dated 28.11.2023, and the first respondent seeks modification of this Court’s following observation in paragraph No.10:
………….. the civil Court must also consider the second to twenty-fifth respondents’ contention that even if these purchasers are entitled to any interest in the subject property, they could claim only such interest in those portions which are allotted to the petitioners and the first respondent and if there is any shortfall in the respective portions in the subject property, the same must be allotted in the other properties allotted to them.
Sri. B. K. Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that the modification would be necessary because if either Sri. Chandrashekariah or his legal heirs have sold any extent more than what is now allotted in terms of the Commissioner’s report, the short fall will have to be made good by them and the first respondent cannot be made accountable. In support of this contention, Sri. B. K. Chandrashekar proposes to rely upon [a] the assertion that the first respondent was not a party to the sale deeds executed either by Sri. Chandrashekariah or his legal heirs, [b] the finding on the original side, and [C] certain affidavits filed in the pending final decree proceedings.
This Court is of the considered view that this Court’s observation does not require any modification except for observing that the first respondent shall not be prejudiced by this Court’s observation and shall be at liberty to demonstrate that the short fall that is referred to must be made good only by the petitioners from out of the properties allotted to them.
As such, the application [I.A.No.2/2023] stands disposed of with liberty as aforesaid.