Dismissed

Sri. Jayant S/O. Fakkirappa Gulenavar, v. Sri. Shankerappa S/O. Peerappa Gulenavar

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2018WP/106011/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order from the Civil Court directing a respondent to produce a certified copy of an adoption deed in a partition suit. The Court held that since the document was already marked subject to proof, the issue of its admissibility as secondary evidence belonged to the final hearing stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits.

Sri. Jayant S/O. Fakkirappa Gulenavar, Vs Sri… — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

¶5

W.P.No.106011/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. JAYANT S/O. FAKKIRAPPA GULENAVAR, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HALLIGERI,TQ.& DIST: DHARWAD.

¶8

SRI. ARJUN S/O. FAKKIRAPPA GULENAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HALLIGERI, TQ.& DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

SRI. GANAPATI S/O. FAKKIRAPPA GULENAVAR, SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS L.RS.,

¶10

3A) DEVENDRA @ DEVENDRAPPA S/O. GANAPATI GULENAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HALLIGERI, TQ.& DIST: DHARWAD.

¶11

SMT. KAREVVA W/O. LAXMAN GULENAVAR, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS, R/O: HALLIGERI, TQ.& DIST: DHARWAD.

¶12

SMT. AKKAVVA W/O. MARUTI GULENAVAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS & AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALLIGERI, TQ.& DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

¶14

LAXMAN S/O. MARUTI GULENAVAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HALLIGERI, TQ.& DIST: DHARWAD.

¶15

SHIVAPPA S/O. LAXMAN GULENAVAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HALLIGERI, TQ.& DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

CHANDRU S/O. LAXMAN GULENAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O:HALLIGERI,TQ.& DIST: DHARWAD. ... PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. S L MATTI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. SHANKERAPPA S/O. PEERAPPA GULENAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.

¶18

1A) SMT. IRAVVA W/O. SHANKERAPPA GULENAVAR, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS, (WIFE),

¶19

2.1B) KRISHNAJI S/O. SHANKERAPPA GULENAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI, (SON),

¶20

3.1C) KEDAR S/O. SHANKERAPPA GULENAVAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI, (SON),

¶21

4.1D) PARASHURAM S/O. SHANKERAPPA GULENAVAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI NUSTRY,(SON),

¶22

5.1E) RAJU S/O. SHANKERAPPA GULENAVAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, ALL ARE R/O: HALLIGERI, TQ. & DIST: DHARWAD.

¶23

¶24

SRI. SHIVAJI S/O. SHANKERAPPA GULENAVAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HALLIGERI, TQ. & DIST: DHARWAD.

¶25

... RESPONDENTS

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AN ORDER ON THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED U/O.16 RULE 6 R/W.151 OF CPC. I.E.,I.A.NO.17 DATED:02.08.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.626/2010 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-Q SO FAR AS DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT TO DEFENDANT NO.2 TO PRODUCE THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ADOPTION DEED WITHOUT CAUSING FURTHER DELAY FOR JUST AND EXPEDITIOUS ADJUDICATION OF THE CASE.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs praying to quash an order on I.A.No.17 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 R/w. Section 151 of CPC passed in O.S.No. 626/2010 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad, wherein the Court below has directed the defendant No.2 to produce the certified copy of

¶30

¶31

the adoption deed without causing further delay for just and expeditious adjudication of the case.

¶32

The gist of the case are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.626/2010 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property wherein the respondent No.2 filed the written statement and thereafter the petitioners/plaintiffs filed re-joinder to the written statement and thereafter the petitioner No.1 has been examined as P.W.1 and two independent witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. After closing of the evidence of petitioners side the respondent No.2 was examined as DW-1 and five witnesses have been examined as D.Ws. 2 to 6 and thereafter plaintiffs/petitioners have filed I.A.No.17 for issuance of summons to the Sub-Registrar, Dharwad to produce the original or certified copy of the Adoption Deed dated 04.09.2017, executed in favour of one Sri.Basavaraj S/o Irappa S/o Srishail Naganur of Marewad village. The respondent No.1 filed detailed objections to the said I.A. contending that the Sub-Registrar is not a custodian of the original Adoption Deed and certified copy cannot be marked

¶33

¶34

as a primary evidence. After considering the said objections, the Court below rejected the application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. but further directed the defendant No.2/respondent herein to produce the certified copy of the Adoption Deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that already the said certified copy has been got marked during the course of evidence subject to proof and subject to objection of the defendants/respondents.

¶35

How the document has to be proved has been laid down by the law of the country and it is well settled principle of law that the secondary evidence is not admissible and that too when the Adoption Deed has been got marked subject to proof, then under such circumstances it is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of final hearing when the matter is going to be heard and decided.

¶36

In the light of the above said facts and circumstances, I feel that the petitioner has not made out any good grounds

¶37

¶38

so as to allow the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is

¶39

dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

Vb/-

Sri. Jayant S/O. Fakkirappa Gulenavar, v. Sri. Shankerappa S/O. Peerappa Gulenavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Jayant S/O. Fakkirappa Gulenavar, v. Sri. Shankerappa S/O. Peerappa Gulenavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Asha W/O Prasanna Hosmath, Vs Sri..Prasanna

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Shobha W/O Jayandhar Chogle

Smt. Padmaja @ Sona Vs Pramod @ Baburao S/O. Laxmanrao Savanur

Shivraj S/O Sadashiv Halingali Vs Smt.Nirmala W/O Shivraj Halingali

Smt.Priyadarshini Vs Pramod

Gurappa Nandeppa Malagundi Vs the Cheif Election Commissioner