JUDGMENT :- V.G. SABHAHIT, J. This appeal is filed by the fifth respondent in W.P. No. 19320 of 2005 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2-3-2009 (Smt. Jayamma and Others v. adhyaksha, Zilla Panchayath, Mandya and Others 2010(1) Kar.L.J. 55 ), wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondents 5 to 7 herein quashed the order dated 26-12-2002 passed by the third respondent and the order dated 30-5-2005 passed by the first respondent. 2. Respondent 5 to 7 herein, filed Writ Petition No. 19320 of 2005 seeking for quashing of Annexure-F, dated 26-12-2002 passed by the third respondent – President, Mandya Taluk Panchayat, Mandya and the order dated 30-5-2005 passed by the President, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners in the writ petition that the husband of the first petitioner and the fifth respondent therein, constituted a partnership firm. The house property bearing Assessment Nos. 704 and 704-A situated at Kottati Hobli, Karasvadi Village, was owned and possessed by late Chikkanna. During his lifetime, by virtue of a settlement deed dated 7-5-1966, two properties were settled in favour of the first petitioner who is the mother of petitioners 2 and 3. The said partnership firm was dissolved by virtue of a dissolution deed dated 7-7-1993 and consequently, the resolution dated 19-2-1996 was passed by the Village Panchayat and the Khatha of the said property was transferred to the name of the first petitioner and an endorsement to that effect was also issued on 7-5-1996. Thereafter, the fifth respondent filed an appeal under Section 273 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act challenging the resolution dated 19-02-1996 which was passed resolving the entire Khatha in the name of the first petitioner. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 26-12-2002 and consequently, the said resolution was set aside. On appeal by the first petitioner before the first respondent, the same was rejected on 30-5-2005 and therefore, the writ petition was filed seeking for the above said relief. 4. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 26-12-2002 and consequently, the said resolution was set aside. On appeal by the first petitioner before the first respondent, the same was rejected on 30-5-2005 and therefore, the writ petition was filed seeking for the above said relief. 4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 5 and learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, by his order dated 2-3-2009, held that there was no documents whatsoever produced to show that the property vested in the partnership firm and in the absence of any such documents, the contention of the partnership firm and in the absence of any such documents, the contention of the petitioners that the property is an individual property of the first petitioner has to be accepted and therefore, the impugned orders at Annexure-F and G are liable to be quashed and accordingly, allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2-3-2009, the fifth respondent has come up with appeal. There is a delay of 55 days in filing the writ appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the property belongs to the partnership firm and the same came to be treated as individual property of the petitioners and that the order by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law, facts and materials on record. 6. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and scrutinized the material on record. 7. The material on record would clearly show that the dispute between the parties is as to whether the property in question is the individual property of the petitioners or the property of the partnership comprising of the husband of the first petitioner and the fifth respondent and the appellant herein. 7. The material on record would clearly show that the dispute between the parties is as to whether the property in question is the individual property of the petitioners or the property of the partnership comprising of the husband of the first petitioner and the fifth respondent and the appellant herein. The materials on record would clearly show that no document whatsoever is produced to show that the property was treated as the property of the partnership firm and in the absence of any document to show that the property vested with the firm was being treated as such, the said contention of the appellant and the fifth respondent cannot be accepted and naturally the property has to be treated as individual property of the petitioners and having regard to the above said facts, it is clear that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the disputed property is an individual property and in quashing the impugned orders dated 26-12-2002 and 30-5-2005. Having regard to the above said reasoning we hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this intra-Court appeal. Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal and pass the following order: The writ appeal is dismissed.