YELLAPPA SURENDRA HALAGI Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners have sought for quashing ihe orders, annexures-a, b, d and e made by respondents-3, 2 and 1 respectively, and for declaring annexures-a and b as null and void.

(2.) the brief fads of the case are as follows: petitioners 1 to 4 are the sons and daughter of surendra by sushila bai, alleged kept mistress of surendra. Sudbir, respondent-5, is the son of, and jayashri, respondent-6, is the wife of the said surendra. Respondent-5 filed a suit in o.s. No. 17/1972 on the file of the principal civil judge, bel gaum, against bis father surendra as defend an 1-1 and nine others including appa saheb son of surendra by his first wife, for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties except lands in sy. No. 475 and also for mesne profits. The suitwas decreed as prayed for. Accordingly a preliminary decree was drawn and the decree was transmitted to the deputy commissioner, belgaum district, for effecting partition and delivery of separate possession.

(3.) the deputy commissioner in turn delegated his power to the assistant commissioner, respondent-2, to effect partition and to deliver possession in accordance with the decree. The assistant commissioner thereupon sent the papers to the assistant director of land records (adlr), belgaum to prepare watap takta in terms of the decree. Accordingly the adlr prepared watap takta and sent it to the assistant commissioner for approval. The assistant commissioner approved the watap takta by his Order, annexure-a, and directed the concerned to hand-over possession thereof to the respective parties, as can be seen from aimexure-b. The tahsildar, pursuant to the direction of the assistant commissioner, issued notices to all the parties to be present at the spot on 22-1-1990 at 3 p.m. to take delivery of possession of their respective shares. At this stage, the petitioners represented to the tahsildar that their father surendra, defendant-1 in the suit, died on 4-11-1985 and that therefore they being the legal representatives of the deceased surendra, should be heard before possession was handed-over in terms of the decree. They also stated that they were in possession of the properties being the highest bidders in the auction held by the court through court commissioner and that therefore, without the knowledge of the commissioner appointed in rfa No. 35/1980 on the file of this court, posses- sion of the. Properties could not be delivered.