Disposed

Siddappa v. Siddappa

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2017WP/100331/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging an appellate order granting interim injunction in a partition suit. The court observed that a condition imposed by the trial court for cost deposit of Rs. 5 lakh if plaintiffs failed stands eschewed since the appellate order triggered the condition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed with the observation that the condition for payment of costs stands eschewed as the appellate court granted injunctory relief.

Siddappa Vs Siddappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^nd DAY OF MARCH, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

Writ Petition No. 100331 of 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Siddappa S/o Basappa Padigodi, Age: 66 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & Dist: Haveri.

¶9

Beerappa S/o Basappa Padigodi, Age: 64 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of: Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & Dist: Haveri.

¶10

Shamappa S/o Basappa Padigodi, Age: 62 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & Dist: Haveri.

¶11

Shantappa S/o Guddappa Padigodi, Age: 49 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & Dist: Haveri.

¶12

Smt.Kannavva W/o Hanumantappa Padigodi, Age: 69 years, Occupation: Household Work & Agriculturist,

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

Resident of: Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & Dist: Haveri.

¶15

Basappa S/o Hanumantappa Padigodi, Age: 46 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & Dist: Haveri.

¶16

Beerappa S/o Siddappa Padigodi, Age: 49 years, Occupation: Coolie, Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Tq & Dist: Haveri.

¶17

Smt.Neengavva W/O Bharalingappa Magod, Age: 56 years, Occupation: Household Work, Resident of Hirelinigadahalli, Tq & Dist: Haveri.

¶18

Smt.Gangavva W/o Bharalingappa Magod, Age: 51 years, Occupation: Household Work, Resident of Hirelinigadahalli, Taluk & Dist: Haveri.

¶19

Ningappa S/o Hanumantappa Padigodi, Age: 44 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & Dist: Haveri.

¶20

Shivappa S/o Siddappa Padigodi, Age: 47 years,Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & Dist: Haveri. ... ... Petitioners

¶21

(By Sri. Bahubali A. Danawade and Sri. G.M. Bhat, Advocates.)

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

And

¶24

1.	Siddappa S/o Guddappa Padigodi, Age: 41 years, Occupation: Agriculturist,
	Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & District: Haveri.
2.	Smt.Mariyavva @ Murigevva
	W/o Guddappa Dabbannavar, Age: 76 years,
	Occupation: Agriculturist & Household, Resident of Hirelingadahalli,
	Taluk & District: Haveri.

¶25

Nagappa S/o Basappa Padigodi, Age: 59 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Tq & Dist: Haveri. 4. Doddashivappa S/o Siddappa Padigodi, Age: 49 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & District: Haveri. 5. Sannashivappa S/o Siddappa Padigodi, Age: 47 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of Najeekalakamapur (Hosuru), Taluk & District Haveri. ... Respondents

¶26

(By Sri. Suresh N Kini, Advocate for Caveat Respondent No. 1)

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to quash the order dated:04.11.2016

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

in M.A.No.22/2016 passed by the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Haveri produced at Annexure-G. And further confirm the order dated:14.07.2016 on I.A.No.V dated:07.06.2016 filed U/o.39 Rules 1 and 2 R/w.Sec.151 of Civil Procedure Code., in O.S.No.88/2016 on the file of Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge And CJM, Haveri produced at Annexure-E.

¶30

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the court made the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

¶33

It is seen that the suit was for partition and separate possession. Incidentally, there was an application for temporary injunction which had been granted by the trial Court and the applications seeking vacating the interim order and grant of adinterim injunction by the defendants had been rejected. The trial Court had also imposed a condition that the plaintiffs should pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as costs to the defendants in the event they fail in the suit and were required to file an affidavit undertaking to pay the said amount. While the defendants had also filed a counter claim seeking injunction against the plaintiffs. The applications filed by the defendant for vacating the interim order

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

and for injunction against the plaintiffs were rejected. Those orders were challenged before the appellate Court. The appellate Court while allowing the appeal has incidentally observed that since the plaintiffs had also failed to comply with the conditions of filing an affidavit undertaking to pay costs, as directed by the trial Court, it was an added consideration on which the defendants were entitled to the reliefs and has accordingly granted injunction against the plaintiffs while also observing that the plaintiffs, on the other hand, would be entitled to mesne profits if they ultimately succeed in the suit. In that view of the matter, the present petition is filed.

¶36

Though insofar in exercise of discretionary power, having granted injunction in favour of the defedants, there is little for this Court to have a say in its writ jurisdiction. However, there is one aspect which has been overlooked by the appellate Court namely that there was a condition imposed on the plaintiffs to pay costs of Rs.5,00,000/- in the event they fail in the suit and were also required to file an affidavit which has been done though belatedly, as no time frame was fixed by the trial Court for filing

¶37

: 6 :

¶38

of such an affidavit. Therefore, the condition would be fully applicable as against the plaintiffs. By virtue of the appellate Court now having interfered and having granted relief to the defendants by way of an injunctory relief, the condition imposed may not be any longer relevant and hence, the condition of payment of costs of Rs.5,00,000/- if the plaintiffs fail in the suit, stands eschewed.

¶39

With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

kmv

Siddappa v. Siddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddappa v. Siddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Intelligence Officer Vs P Balakrishnan @ Krishna @ Balan @ Rajan

Joseph Chacko Vs State of Karnataka

Joseph Chacko Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavraj S/O. Mallikarjun Motagi Vs Sanjay Subash Motagi

Shashikala W/O. Ganapati Bhat Vs Annayya Subray Bhat

Shivappa Parsa Gulagavi Vs Maruti Sabu Gulagavi