Disposed

Jambayya S/O Somayya Pujar, v. Somayya S/O Channabasayya Pujar

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2019WP/102627/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners sought to quash a remand order directing an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and frame an issue regarding legal necessity for property alienation. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions without prejudice, noting no objection existed regarding further evidence provision in the main appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of with liberty to raise grounds in pending appeal; no prejudice caused.

Jambayya S/O Somayya Pujar, Vs Somayya S/O… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

W.P. NO.102627/2015 & W.P. NO.102647/2015 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

JAMBAYYA S/O SOMAYYA PUJAR @ DEVAGIRI HIREMATH, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.YEMMATTI P/O: BANAGITTI GONDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

CHANDRAYYA S/O SOMAYYA PUJAR @ DEVAGIRI HIREMATH, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.YEMMETTI P/O: BANAGITTI GONDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

SOMAYYA S/O CHANNABASAYYA PUJAR @ DEVAGIRI HIREMATH, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.YEMMETTI P/O: BANAGITTI GONDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶14

JAMBAYYA S/O CHANNABASAYYA PUJAR @ DEVAGIRI HIREMATH, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.YEMMETTI P/O: BANAGITTI GONDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. S.R.HEGDE ASSTS, ADV. FOR R2, R1 SERVED)

¶17

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 IN R.A. NO.120/2010 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBLI ITINERARY COURT KALGHATAGI (ANNEXUER-E).

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioners are appellant Nos.1 and 2 in R.A. No.120/2010 which is an appeal remanded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 14.02.2013 passed in MSA No.545/2012 (MV) directing the appellate court to re-appreciate evidence on record, and if it so chooses, to frame the issue as indicated in paragraph 16 of the judgment. Issue which came to be proposed by the Co-ordinate Bench reads as under:

¶22

“Whether defendant No.2 proves that the sale of the suit schedule property was for legal necessity?”

¶23

The reason for directing the trial court to frame said issue, if it chooses to do so was on the premise that 2^nd defendant had already tendered his evidence in order to substantiate the defence set up in the written statement which was to the effect that alienation of suit schedule property was for legal necessity. It is in this background, Co-ordinate Bench had directed lower appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence already available on record by

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

framing the issue as indicated herein above. Neither of the parties were given liberty to tender any further evidence.

¶26

Be that as it may. As could be seen from the order sheet of lower appellate court which is at Annexure – E and the order dated 27.02.2015, learned advocates appearing for D.W.5, plaintiff and defendants have in chorus had submitted they had no oral evidence to tender. However, lower appellate court seems to have granted an opportunity to 2^nd defendant to tender further evidence by permitting D.W.5 to be examined and he having been examined, cross-examination has been taken as nil on the submission made by the respective learned advocates appearing for the parties, which is also recorded in the deposition.

¶27

No prejudice would be caused to petitioner in this regard and as such, reserving liberty to petitioner to raise all such grounds, in the pending appeal these petitions stand disposed of.

¶28

SD/JUDGE

¶29

Rsh

Jambayya S/O Somayya Pujar, v. Somayya S/O Channabasayya Pujar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jambayya S/O Somayya Pujar, v. Somayya S/O Channabasayya Pujar

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

Sri. G S Pateel Vs Bengaluru Developement

Shantayya S/O. Veerayya Hiremath Vs Nagaraj S/O. Hanumanthappa

The Gram Panchayat, Ramgurwadi Vs Anton S/O Juje Lobo

Bahubali Devagouda Nasalapure Vs Shantappanna Miraji

Laxmi W/O Anand Nandi Vs Basavaraj S/O Kempanna Kullur

Laxmibai W/O Appanna Chougala, Vs Kasturi W/O Nagappa Guledavar