Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
4 mx V (a •1 a 6? S ‘a bb aa CR S
S a - —2— Thippanna son of Mallappa Jambagi, Major, resident of Jamkhandi, Dist. Bijapur. RESPOPNDENT HRRP 143/96 Smt.Radhabai w/o Govind Shinde, Major k household work and business of Jamkhandi. RESPONDENT frIRRP 144/96 1. Shri. Janardhan Laxminarayana Bhat, aged 45 years, Hotel business,’ rio Jamkhandi. 2. Sri.,Govind Laxminarayan Bhat, age 40 yrs. hotel business, rio Jamkhandi. RESPONDENTS HRRP 145/96 Manohar son of Balkrishna Suryavamshi, major, 0cc. Trader of Jamkhandi. RESPONDENT HRRP 146/96 (Sri. A.V.Albal for respondent in all) HRRPs 142/96. 143/96, 144/96, 145/96 and 146/96 are filed under section 115 of CPC against the order dated 21—9-1998 passed in RRPs 44/89, 42/89, 41/89,47/89, and 43/89 respectively on the file of the 1st Addl.Dist. Judge, Bijapur, allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order passed in HRC No. 16/77, 15/77,18/77,13/77,aud 17/77 dt. 15—9-1989 by the Prl. Munsaiff, Jamkhandi, allowing the petition filed under section 21 (1)(a) (h) and (f) of KRC Act. These revisions being reserved for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
-10- a challenge to petitioner’s title by the alleged trustees of th. property in question the trustees attacking the auction sale by the Income Tax Department in favour of the petitioner as being void. Admittedly, the litigation between the trustees and the petitioner ended some time in the year 1983 giving a quietus to the litigation. Thereafter, the respondents—tenants have made various payments in court admittedly from 1983 onwards but not making up the claim made in the notice, even at the admitted rate. 14. All the respondents-tenants were served with notices demanding arrears of rent with effect from the date of purchase by the petitioner is undisputed. The defence that was sought to be raised by the respondents-tenants did not pertain to any right asserted by them as against the petitioner—landlord. All that they contended was that the petitioner’s title to the property by reason of the purchase in the auction conducted by the Income Tax Department was invalid on account of the fact that the property was the subject of a trust created for the benefit of students belonging
V k
• - . — • I. jj. — - T — - — I. - S I •• . I L J • • S. • L • 4 • .4 1 • - • ( • - — V* a a
IiIi S
Ii o ft z 0 0 ft a 0 0•0 ,t< C ft pd. 5 0 0 Pd. -ç t z • 0 0 a 0 a ft ft o C 7 -% z 0 Pd a z 0 Sc cc - 0 Sc 0 C 0 ft 0 •U 0 0 C 70 0 o Sc z 0 0 z o a a ri a z a s-’• a ft 0 0 z o o Z ft Sc Pd. 0 0 0 N I Pd. ia ft ft 0 0 0 0 -ft Z a o 0 ,a ft -ft % ft 7 n Sc ft 0 0 7 b 0 0 0 Sc C 0 o 3 Pd• 3 0 ‘1 0 0 C -ft .- z ft z Pd’ ft Pd. 0 0 -‘ft 50 Pd. ft 0’ 5 0 z -ft S I-’ 0 — . —hO 0 0 0 -t Z 0 t., Sc Pd’ Pd’ 0 0 C C 0 Pd’ Sc Sc ft 0 Sc 0 o 0 ft Pd’ .0 £ C ft 50 0 0 0 3 7014. a z a o • C i’. a ft 0 0 0 0 0 a ft z C • i-s. ft o Sc 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 -4 0 5 £ ft Z 0 0 50 0 0 ‘000ft ft5 0 a Sc 0 0 0 Pd’ 0 C C Pd’ i-s. 0 0 0 z Pd. Pd. 0 o 0 O’O “C -It a ft 0 77 0 Pd’ 0 0 3 Sc • ft C Sc 0 14’ 0 0 I-’ V Pd’0ft Sc Pd’0ft (4 Ca 0 i-i 0 ft z o f40 C 0 ft a c a so 0 0 0 a 0 0 ‘C0 Sc0 Pd• 00 ‘0C •0 ft Sc Pd’ 0 0 3 0 3 •0 Pd’ 0 0 ft Z 0 0 a 0 0 £ 0 ft Pd’ C 0 ft Sc I S Sc ft 0 0 o j z o a o 0 0 z ft Sc ft 0 0 ‘00 LISP 0 Lrj 0000 Pd. 0 Pd’ I--s Pd’ • 00 0 0 Sc I— Z I-’ 0 ‘< 0 a I 0 N 0 6) Sc I £S Pd’05 00 z0ft sri 0-ft 5 Q• Pd’ 0 0 I