CHIKKANNA Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 30.11.2009 passed in Appeal No.11/2008- 09. The said order is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers.

(3.) THE respondents, more particularly the respondents No.3 to 11 have filed their objection statement and disputed the contentions put forth by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is entitled only to an extent measuring 48 ft X 42 ft and not the extent as claimed by the petitioner. It is contended that the vendor of the petitioner did not own larger extent other than the said measurement of 42 ft X 48 ft and therefore the larger extent could not have been sold. In that context, it is contended that the vendor had derived right in respect of the property under certain transactions relating to partition in the year 1926 where the extent indicated in the sale deed had not fallen to the share of the vendor of the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents that the sale deed itself would indicate that the vendor was blind and that he was not worldly wise and therefore it is contended that the petitioner cannot claim right in respect of the extent which has been wrongly indicated under the said sale transaction. Hence, it is contended that the remaining extent of the property is in the possession of the School. Therefore the respondents herein are seeking to protect such property for the benefit of the public.