SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 225

H. P. SANDESH
P. Laxminarayana Bhat – Appellant
Versus
Shanthi Bhat – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Sri. Jayakara Shetty.H, Advocate, for the Appellant; Sri. Chandranath Ariga K., Advocate, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The MFA is filed challenging the order of allowing I.A.II filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, directing the defendant not to alienate or encumber the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit, i.e. in respect of 'A' schedule property. The Trial Court ordered not to make any alterations or changes in the said property.

3. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contends that the Trial Court committed an error in passing such order, when there was a partition deed and also submits that the suit is filed by first respondent, who was 83 years old at the time of filing the suit and fails to take note of the fact that he does not have any right in respect of suit schedule property. The Trial Court also has not considered that it is not in dispute that suit schedule property has already been partitioned as per the registered partition deed dated 30.04.2008. The suit came to be filed in the year 2015. The registered partition deed is well within the knowledge of first respondent and the appellant had infact sold some portion of the land to the third parties and those

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top