Karnataka High Court
WRIT PETITION 3453 of 2025 on 13 July 1974
Digitally signedby SUMA B NLocation: HighCourt ofKarnataka IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3453 OF 2025 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
NAGENDRA V.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O VENKATESH K., R/AT NO.33/3, SHANKAR NAG ROAD DOMFUR VILLAGE BANGALORE - 500 071.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PREETHAM JUDE CORREA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP BY THE COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST T CHOWDATAH ROAD BANGALORE -500 020. T CHOWDATAH ROAD BANGALORE -500 020.
2. MRS. LALITHA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WO LATE V. A JAGANNATH
3. MR. SHARANYA J., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE V A. JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE V A. JAGANNATH
4. MR. SHREYAS J., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O LATE V. A. JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O LATE V. A. JAGANNATH
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT HOUSE NO. 15, HAL MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR BANGALORE-560 071
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R1)
Page 1 of 3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION BARRING THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FROM EXECUTING ANY SALE DEED OR CONVEYANCE FOR SITE NO. 645, DOMLUR LAYOUT EXTENSION, BANGALORE IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT MRS. LALITHA AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner claiming to be the son of the brother of original allottee, namely, Lakshmaiah, is before this Court seeking an order restraining the respondent-BDA from executing any deeds of conveyance in favour respondent No.2.
2. Case of the petitioner is that the site bearing No.645 situated at Domlur Layout Extension, Bangalore, was originally allotted by the respondent- BDA in favour of one Sri.Lakshmaiah on 07.06.1968. That a lease-cum-sale agreement was also executed in his favour. Said Lakshmaiah passed away on 13.07.1973. Thereupon, his wife Smt.Aluvelamma made an application to the respondent-BDA
on 13.07.1974 seeking transfer of aforesaid site in her name. That said Aluvelamma passed away on 16.09.1998. Said Lakshmaiah and Aluvelamma did not have any child out of their marriage. Taking advantage of this situation, it is alleged that, one V.A.Jagannath, the husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondent Nos.3 and 4 claiming himself to have been adopted by said Aluvelamma, sought for conveyance of property in his name. Even the said V.A.Jagannath had passed away on 20.12.2015.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that in furtherance to the claim so made by said V.A.Jagannath, respondent No.2 being his wife and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 being his children are now making hectic efforts to have the said property transferred in their names. It is under these circumstances present petition is filed seeking the relief as sought for.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Page 2 of 3
5. Essentially the dispute is with regard to the inheritance of the property left behind by Lakshmaiah and Aluvelamma. That petitioner claims to be the nephew of Lakshmaiah, while the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 claim themselves to be the legal representative of one V.A.Jagannath, a purported adopted son of Aluvelamma, this aspect of the matter cannot be gone into in this writ petition as the same involves complex questions of fact and law required to be adjudicated and determined in properly constituted suit before a Competent Court of law.
6. Accordingly, reserving such liberty to the petitioners to avail such remedy as permissible under law, petition is disposedof declining to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the fact situation the matter.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…