Partly allowed

Smt Manjula v. Sri Chetankumar

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2021WP/5546/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order appointing a Tahasildar as receiver in a suit between mother and son, the High Court quashed the appointment of the Tahasildar and modified the order to appoint the petitioner as the receiver instead.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order appointing Tahasildar as receiver was quashed, and the petitioner was appointed as the receiver in her place.

Smt Manjula Vs Sri Chetankumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5546 OF 2021(GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MANJULA, W/O LATE THONTARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND CHINMAYI KRISHNA MANDIR, DISTRICT: TUMKUR – 572 103.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. CHETANKUMAR, S/O LATE THONTARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O C/O BHASKARACHAR, SREE RAKSHA NILAYA, 6^TH CROSS, BEHIND PETROL BUNK, VIDYANAGAR, TIPTUR TOWN, DISTRICT: TUMKUR – 572 103.

¶13

SMT. RANJITHA D/O LATE THONTARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND CHINMAYI KRISHNA MAJOR, GARDEN HOUSE, VIDYANAGAR, TIPTUR,

¶14

DISTRICT: TUMKUR – 572 103. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.49,

¶15

4^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, NEAR GELEYARABALAGA BUS-STOP, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 096.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA A/W

¶18

SRI.V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SURESH D DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DAED 12.2.2021 ON IA.NO.VII IN O.S.NO.27/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIPTUR VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The matter was argued on three occasions and time was

¶24

given for working out an amicable settlement since petitioner and the contesting respondent happen to be son and mother.

¶25

Learned counsel Mr.Shanmukhappa appearing for the contesting respondent-mother submits that his client has no objection for appointment of a Receiver; however, it is not desirable to appoint Tahasildar as such; he also submits that petitioner herself may be appointed as a Receiver; to this proposal, counsel for the petitioner is agreeable and there is no dissent from the counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶26

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off modifying the impugned order to the effect that petitioner be & is appointed as the Receiver for the subject

¶27

¶28

properties in the place of Tahasildar, all usual norms & conditions would apply to both the sides.

¶29

Learned Judge of the Court below is requested to try & dispose off the suit, preferably within a period of one year, all contentions having been kept open; it hardly needs to be mentioned that the appointment of the receiver is co-terminus with the disposal of the suit.

¶30

No costs.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

cbc

Smt Manjula v. Sri Chetankumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manjula v. Sri Chetankumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zia Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Spml Infra Limited Vs Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited

Smt. Umadevi Vs Vijaya Bank

Sri.G.N. Venkataravanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Kanakamma Vs Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha

Abdul Reheman Vs Sri. Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha