LAWS(KAR)-2013-2-93

VENKATESH Vs. COMMISSIONER

Decided On February 04, 2013
VENKATESH Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 17.05.2010 which is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioners have also sought for issue of direction to the respondents to make khatha in their favour in respect of the petition schedule property.

(2.) THE petitioners claim that they are the owners of the property bearing No.41, situate at 6 th Cross, Anjaneya Swamy Temple Compound, Samangiramanagar, Ward No.77, Bangalore-560 027, measuring east to west 30 feet and north to south 70 feet. The said property was a subject matter of dispute earlier inasmuch as in a suit between Sri Chikkabyrappa and others ­vs- Smt. N. Lakshmidevamma and others, the said property is also said to have been included. In that regard, when the decree holders in that proceedings had filed execution petition No.1346/92, the petitioners herein claiming right in respect of a portion of the property which was the subject matter of the said decree had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 to 100 R/w Section 151 of CPC praying that the decree holders shall not dispossess them from the property bearing No.41 situate at 6 th Cross, Anjaneya Swamy Temple Compound, Samangiramanagar, Bangalore- 560 027. In that regard, on enquiry of the said application in I.A.No.16, the Executing Court in Execution No.1346/92 made the following order:

(3.) AT an earlier instance when the same had not been done, the petitioners were before this Court in W.P.No.13309/2007 dated 04.06.2008 and a direction had been issued by this Court to consider the petitioners' representation for transfer of khatha and pass orders strictly in accordance with law. Since the same had not been done, the petitioners were before this Court once over again in W.P.No.16284/2009 dated 22.06.2009. This Court had once over again directed that the orders be passed within a period of three weeks. In that circumstance, the impugned order dated 17.05.2010 has been passed and the claim of the petitioners has been rejected.