High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 06 KAR CK 0016

SRI.L.C.RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O LATE GANGAPPA vs THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF KARNATAKA TOWN MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, & ORS.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 1 June 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
CASE NUMBER
2378-2379 of 2015 (LB-RES)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 342 words

ORDERS ON IA NO.1 OF 2015

1.

After hearing Mr.K.N.Nitish, learned advocate appearing

for the appellant, Mr.Vivek Holla, learned government pleader

appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr.A.Nagarajappa, learned

advocate for the respondent No.2 and Mr.N.V.Manjunath,

learned advocate for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and

considering the averments contained in the affidavit annexed to

the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that

the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting

the memoranda of writ appeals in time. Therefore, the delay in

filing the writ appeals is condoned.

The application for condonation of delay stands allowed.

There will be no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

2.

By consent, the writ appeals are taken up for preliminary hearing.

3.

The disputed property originally belonged to one Yashodamma. She was a childless widow. She allegedly left behind a Will bequeathing the property in favour of her brother T.V.Manjunath.

4.

The appellant, who has filed these writ appeals with an application for leave to prefer the appeals, claims to be the adopted son of Yashodamma.

5.

The status of the parties could not be decided in the writ jurisdiction. A civil suit is pending inter se parties. The khata was standing in the name of the appellant. By filing a proceeding, the writ petitioners got the khata changed in their names. Admittedly, this appellant was not made party in the said proceeding.

6.

We could have set aside the entries in the khata and could have directed restoration of the khata in favour of the appellant, but, that would serve no useful purpose inasmuch as the title of the parties are involved in a civil suit.

7.

Therefore, we direct the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and, also, direct the parties to maintain status quo, as of today, in relation to the property in dispute, during the pendency of the said suit.

8.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ appeals and the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

9.

There will be no order as to costs.