The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order denying stay of final decree proceedings in a partition suit involving immovable property, noting the redundancy of staying proceedings that have already attained finality.
Dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned order without any stay of proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.23093 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
2
All are resident of Patla of Kabaka Village, Puttur Taluk , Dakshina Kannada.
…PETITIONERS
(By Shri. K. Chandranath Ariga, Advocate)
AND:
3
Aged about 50 years, Son of Late Thimmappa Poojary,
4
P.O.Panemangalore, Bantwal Taluk.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Vide court order dated 10.10.2013 Notice to Respondent nos.2 to 10 dispensed with )
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 13.6.2012 on I.A.No.2 in R.A.No.5/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, vide Annexure-G.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The
petitioners are said to be the plaintiffs in a suit filed in the year 2004. However, this was in the backdrop of an earlier suit in O.S.No.281/1973, wherein the predecessor of the present petitioner was a party and the suit was decreed and was affirmed in appeal and Final Decree Proceedings had also attained finality. However, the present suit is filed on the footing that some of the items of the suit property were granted
5
to the brother of Koragappa Poojary and his two brothers in their individual capacity in the year 1976 and the suit having been filed even prior to the year 1976 could not be treated as if it is joint family property. The present suit in O.S.No.3/2004 having been dismissed on merits, the same was challenged in appeal and in the appeal, the present petitioners had sought stay of Final Decree Proceedings insofar as they pertain to two items of property, in respect of which, occupancy rights had been granted. The Court below having rejected the application, is sought to be challenged in the present petition.
6
illogical and impracticable to stay those proceedings as there are no further proceedings to be stayed.
before the lower appellate court, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a dissent in a suit regarding immovable property can stay final decree proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Jayantha and others
Sri. Anni Poojary
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
