Dismissed

Laxmi W/O Anand Nandi v. Basavaraj S/O Kempanna Kullur

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2019WP/108028/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a compromise decree in O.S.No.159/2013. The Court held the decree could not be held unlawful as the petitioner's right was circumscribed by her father's rights, reserving her liberty to pursue relief in the pending partition suit.

What did the court decide?

Compromise decree in O.S.No.159/2013 held not unlawful; writ petition dismissed.

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

WRIT PETITION No.108028 OF 2014 [GM-CPC]

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. LAXMI W/O ANAND NANDI, AGE: 24 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHIKKANANDI TQ: GOKAK DIST: BELGAUM-590001

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLLI FOR SHRI SACHIN S.MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

BASAVARAJ S/O KEMPANNA KULLUR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NALLANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶13

CHANDRAKANT S/O. KEMPANNA KULLUR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NALLANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶14

KEMPANNA S/O. NINGAPPA KULLUR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NALLANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶15

KEMPAWWA W/O. KEMPANNA KULLUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NALLANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

SHOBAVVA W/O. SATISH AGALENNAVAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HULAKUND, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶18

MANGALA W/O. PUNDALIK WAGGA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PAMALADINNI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶19

BALAWWA W/O BALAPPA NANDI, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHIKKANANDI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶20

GOURAWWA W/O. YALLAPPA BELAGALI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NALLANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶21

SHIDAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA KULLUR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NALLANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶22

SAWWAKKA D/O. NINGAPPA KULLUR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NALLANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶23

LAKKAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA KULLUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NALLANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SHRI H.R.GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4, R9 & R11; NOTICE TO R5 TO R8 & R10 - SERVED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.04.2013, PASSED IN O.S.NO.159/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE & JFMC, GOKAK VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AND FINAL DECREE DRAWN ON

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

08/04/2013 IN OS.NO.159/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petitioner is challenging the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.159/2013, which suit had been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 against respondent Nos.1 to 11 herein, contending interalia that petitioner had already filed a suit in O.S.No.326/2012 claiming partition of suit schedule properties, which is also the property described in the pliant in O.S.No.159/2013 and as such the plaintiffs and defendants in O.S.No.159/2013 could not have entered into a compromise without making her a party.

¶32

O.S.No.159/2013, which is at annexure-B would disclose that 9^th defendant is one Shri Lakkappa, in the suit filed by the present petitioner in

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

O.S.No.326/2012, she has arraigned her father Lakkappa as 4^th defendant and reading of the plaint would clearly disclose that she is claiming a right over the suit schedule properties through her father Shri Lakkappa. When said Shri Lakkappa was the defendant in O.S.No.159/2013, petitioner’s right if any is circumscribed by the right vested to Lakkappa. As such reserving liberty to the petitioners to pursue her grievance in the pending suit in O.S.no.326/2012, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition as the compromise entered into between the parties in

¶35

O.S.No.159/2013 cannot be held to be unlawful. Hence, the petition stands dismissed subject to the observation made herein above.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

Vnp*

Laxmi W/O Anand Nandi v. Basavaraj S/O Kempanna Kullur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi W/O Anand Nandi v. Basavaraj S/O Kempanna Kullur

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

Jambayya S/O Somayya Pujar, Vs Somayya S/O Channabasayya Pujar

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