Smt. Varalakshmi W/O R. Raju Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- limitation act (36 of 1963)article 58: [v. jagannathan, j] suit for declaring relinquishment deed as in valid limitation elder coparcener relinquished his share in favour of other brother of plaintiff clear from evidence barring one plaintiff, the other had attained majority on date of execution of relinquishment deed one of plaintiffs, who was a minor, also attained majority suit filed long after completion of three years period from date of attaining of majority of each one of plaintiffs by skillfully mentioning in pleadings that plaintiffs came to know about relinquishment deed only about two months prior to filing of suit, they cannot avoid limitation period held, question of relinquishment deed being labeled as void does not arise. partition suit: [v. jagannathan, j] relinquishment of share by brother in favour of other brother by plaintiff by seeking relief of partition and separate possession of their share in suit property are, in effect, calling in question deed of relinquishment which is registered document held, unless and until said deed of relinquishment is set aside, question of plaintiffs staking a claim for share in suit property will not arise. relinquishment of share by coparcener: [ v. jagannathan, j] brother relinquishing his interest in coparcenaries property by way of gift in favour of other brother and his sons held, it is not restricted to only by way of sale of mortgage. relinquishment ensures for benefit of all other coparceners.p.d. dinakaran, c.j.1. the appeal is directed against the order dated 4th august 2009 made in writ petition no. 13703/2009 where under, the learned single judge applying the ratio laid down by the apex court in election commission of india v. ashok kumar and ors. : (2000) 8 scc 216, that courts' intervention should not be sought in order to effectuate the interruption, obstruction of the election proceedings and judicial remedy, if any, should be availed by the aggrieved parties after the holding of elections, refused to grant stay in respect of election to the post of president and vice-president of taluka panchayat, bangalore east.2.1. the admitted fact is that after notifying the election schedule on 18th may 2009, by way of corrigendum dated 15th may 2009, the government proposed to revise the allotment of reservation issued on 5th may 2009.2.2. as per the earlier notification dated 5th may 2009, the allotment of reservation for the post of president was among bc-b(w). but as per, the corrigendum dated 15th may 2009, it is reserved for general candidates.2.3. similarly, as per the earlier notification dated 5th may 2009, the allotment of reservation for the post of vice president of taluka panchayat, east taluk was scheduled caste but, as per the corrigendum dated 15th may 2009, it is reserved for bca.3.1. as the law on the point is well settled that once election schedule is notified, that is, in the instant case on 18th may 2009, the allotment of reservation already notified cannot be changed, altered or amended either by a fresh notification or by issuance of corrigendum. it is also true that it is not proper for the courts to intervene in the election matter.3.2. in our considered opinion, therefore, suffice it to quash the corrigendum dated 15th may 2009 and permit the respondents to proceed with the elections to the post of president and vice-president as per the earlier notification dated 5th may 2009 notifying the election schedule on 18th may 2009 so far as it relates to taluka panchayat, bangalore east is concerned.the writ appeal is disposed of, accordingly