High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition seeking to quash an order refusing the petitioner, a wife, to come on record as a necessary party in a partition suit filed by the daughter during the husband's lifetime.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.107529/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.BASAVVA W/O. FAKKIRAGOUDA MUGANNAVAR AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.ADARGUNCHI, TALUK HUBLI DISTRICT DHARWAD
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHADRAD & SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
ALL ARE R/O.NEAR MANJUNATH DEVAR TEMPLE, NOOLVI, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5, R17 & R18; SRI. SANTOSH NARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R6 – R8; SRI. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R10 – R14; R1 & R16 – SERVED; R9 & R15 – PETITION REJECTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBLI ON I.A NO.III IN O.S.NO.82/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.III.
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 petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
instant application is made to come on record in order to prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. The learned counsel would admit that the properties are ancestral properties. If that be so, the moot question is whether the applicant being the wife could seek for a partition during the lifetime of the husband. The said issue has been appropriately answered by the trial Court and it is held that the applicant is neither necessary nor her presence warranted for effective adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to demonstrate any error or illegality in the reasoning set out to reject the application.
In that view of the matter, petition stands rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
gab
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the wife of a husband is a necessary party to a partition suit filed by the daughter during the husband's lifetime.
Whether the lower court was correct in holding that the applicant's presence was not warranted for effective adjudication.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT.BASAVVA W/O. FAKKIRAGOUDA MUGANNAVAR
SMT.ANASAVVA W/O BASAVANNEPPA GATAGENNAVAR
SRI FAKKIRAGOUDA S/O SHIVANAGOUDA MUGANNAVAR
G. NARENDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
