Allowed

Bangarewwa Appanna Waded v. Basappa Kallappa Vaded

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2019WP/104620/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

It is a Writ Petition challenging an order rejecting an application to implead necessary parties in a partition suit. The High Court held the rejection erroneous and remanded the matter to the trial court. It further directed expedited disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application remanded to trial court; suit disposal directed to be completed by 31.12.2019.

Bangarewwa Appanna Waded Vs Basappa Kallappa Vaded — Partition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.104620/2014 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.BANGAREWWA APPANNA WADED AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. HALYAL, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶9

SRI.RAOSAB APPANNA WADED AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HALYAL, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶10

KUMARI SUNANDA D/O. APPANNA WADED AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HALYAL, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶11

SRI.KALLAPPA APPANNA WADED AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HALYAL, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. C. S. SHETTAR FOR SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI.BASAPPA KALLAPPA VADED AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HALYAL, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶16

¶17

SRI.SADASHIV KALLAPPA VADED AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HALYAL, TQ: ATHANI

¶18

DIST: BELAGAVI

¶19

SETKARI SAHAKARA SAKAR KHARKANE TIPPENHALLI TQ: JATH, DIST: SANGLI

¶20

STATE: MAHARASHTRA

¶21

THE SLAO HIDKAL TQ: HUKKERI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶22

SMT.BASALINGAWWA KALLAPPA VADED AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. HALYAL, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶23

SMT.LAXMAWWA W/O. SIDLING HUBBALLI SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

¶24

6A) SRI.SURESH SIDLING HUBBALLI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE R/O KAGAWAD, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶25

6B) SMT.KALAWATI SIDLING HUBBALLI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. KAGAWAD, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶26

6C) RAJU SIDLING HUBBALLI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. KAGAWAD, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶27

SMT.NEELAWWA SHANKAR HUBBALLI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O.MOLE, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶28

¶29

SMT. SHANTAWWA SHIVAPPA NISPATI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. SHIRAHATTI, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶30

SMT.CHANDRAWWA SHIRSHAIL YADWAD AGE: MAJOR OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. HALYAL, TQ: ATHANI DIST: BELAGAVI

¶31

... RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. BHAGYASHREE N. B. FOR SRI.RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 – S/H/S; R4, R6A, R7, R8 & R9 – SERVED; R5 & R6(B) – PETITION STAND REJECTED)

¶33

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.26 FOR IMPLEADING FILED BEFORE THE ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI IN O S NO.94/2000 VIDE ANNEXURE-D DATED 27.02.2013 AND ORDER IN REVIEW PETITION NO.3/2013 DATED 24.02.2014 FILED BEFORE THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO.26 FOR IMPLEADING.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶39

The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani in O.S.NO.94/2000, rejecting I.A.No.26 preferred under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC.

¶40

The writ petition lies in narrow compass. The case of the petitioners is that, the propositus Kallappa Waded had six grand children and the application is by the plaintiff desiring to bring them on record as they were surviving children of the daughter of propositus. The trial Court after hearing the parties was pleased to reject the same on the premise that, one of the daughters of deceased Satyavva is already represented before the Court through her husband, who is none other than the 1^st defendant.

¶41

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the mother of the said Tangewwa i.e., the deceased Satyavva is entitled to an independent share in the property and hence the presence of the said Tangewwa is necessary for complete adjudication of the lis, as she claims a right independent of her husband and through her deceased mother.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the said application is very much contrary to the assertions made on behalf of the plaintiff, who has asserted that the daughters are not entitled to their share.

¶44

Be that as it may. This Court has perused the impugned order. The said order does not disclose a finding as to whether the proposed defendants are necessary or proper parties for complete adjudication of the lis i.e., before the Court which is seized of by the trial Court. The provisions of the Order I Rule 10(2) read as under:

¶45

¶46

“10. Suit in the name of wrong plaintiff .__

¶47

(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶48

(2) Court may strike out or add parties . –

¶49

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court, effectually and completely, to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”

¶50

From a bare reading of the above provision,

¶51

it is apparent that the provision invests in the Court a power to add or strike out parties who in the opinion of the Court are necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

¶52

Admittedly, the instant suit is one for partition and possession. The admitted fact is that, the

¶53

¶54

proposed defendants are the daughters and a son through a predeceased daughter. That being the admitted case, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to examine as to whether the said persons are proper or necessary parties for full and final adjudication of the suit. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The application I.A.26 is remanded back to the trial Court for consideration and disposal within two weeks from the date of communication of the order.

¶55

Further keeping in view the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005, which categorizes the said cases as track 2 cases and such cases are required to be heard and disposed off within 24 months. That the suit is of the year 2000. Almost two decades have passed by. Hence in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case, which would warrant a direction to the trial Court to expedite the consideration and disposal of the suit within a fixed time frame.

¶56

¶57

Hence the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate on or before 31.12.2019. The Court shall ensure that unnecessary adjournments are not granted and shall record the reasons for adjourning the hearing.

¶58

Petition stands ordered accordingly.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

gab

Bangarewwa Appanna Waded v. Basappa Kallappa Vaded

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangarewwa Appanna Waded v. Basappa Kallappa Vaded

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

N Subramanyam S/O. Late N. Vs Mallamma W/O. Sunkappa

Chinnavva W/O Ningappa Kittur, Vs Guruprakash S/O Veerayya Kochalapurmath

Kumar S/O Lingaraj Balehosur Vs Basavaraj S/O Lingaraj Balehosur and Ors.

Dhanalaxmi Sahakari Sakkare Vs Padadayya S Gaddadmath

Anand Babu Holer @ Kambale Vs Sharnappa Parasappa Kambale

Basavva W/O Fakkiragouda Mugannavar Vs Anasavva W/O Basavanneppa Gatagennavar