Dismissed

Smt.Padmavva W/O Goudappa Naik v. Smt.Nirmalabai W/O Ravivarma @

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2019WP/108493/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed two revived writ petitions challenging the Trial Court's refusal to implead additional respondents in a partition suit. The Court held that purchases and partitions made during the pendency of the appeal attracted the principle of lis pendens, meaning the proposed respondents were bound by the decree, justifying dismissal of the writ petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt.Padmavva W/O Goudappa Naik Vs Smt.Nirmalabai W/O Ravivarma @ — Partition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

W.P.NO.108493/2019 (GM-CPC) C/W W.P.NOS.76023-76024/2013

¶6

IN W.P.NO.108493/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.PADMAVVA W/O GOUDAPPA NAIK AGE:70 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KULAGOD 591310, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶9

SURESH S/O GOUDAPPA NAIK AGE:55 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KULAGOD 591310, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶10

RAMESH S/O GOUDAPPA NAIK AGE:50 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KULAGOD 591310, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶11

SMT. RATNAVVA W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA LANKEPPANVAR, AGE:45 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:MUDALAGI 591312, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶12

SMT. DRAKSHAYANI W/O BHIMAPPA SONAWALKAR,

¶13

¶14

AGE:45 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:MUDALAGI 591312, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶15

... PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. GIRISH A YADAWAD AND SRI C.J.POL, ADVOCATES)

¶17

AND

¶18

SMT.NIRMALABAI W/O RAVIVARMA @ CHANDURAO B DESAI, AGE:50 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DSIT:BELAGAVI

¶19

SMT. LAXMIBAI @ AKKASAHEB W/O BALAPPA @ BABASAHEB B.DESAI AGE:80 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶20

GIREPPA @ ANNASAHEB S/O BALAPPA @ BABASAHEB B. DESAI AGE:60 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶21

TIMAPPA @ BALASAHEB S/O BALAPPA @ BABASAHEB B.DESAI AGE:55 YEARS, OCCU AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶22

NANASAHEB @ VENKATARAO S/O BALAPPA @ BABASAHEB B.DESAI, AGE:50 YEARS, OCCU AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶23

¶24

DHARMARAJ @ MANJUNATH S/O RAVIVARMA @ CHANDURAO B DESAI AGE:33 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O :HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶25

KUMARI JALAJAKSHI D/O RAVIVARMA @ CHANDURAO B DESAI AGE:30 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶26

AMBARISHVARMA, S/O RAVIVARMA @ CHANDURAO B DESAI AGE:33 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶27

VENKANNA S/O HANUMANT B DESAI AGED 50 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI

¶28

HANUMANT S/O YASHWANT DESAI AGED 55 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI

¶29

TAMMASAHEB S/O YASHWANT DESAI AGED 52 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI

¶30

SMT. AKKASAHEB W/O MARUTI BISTANNAVAR AGED 45 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:ANNIGOL 591102 TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶31

ANNASAHEB S/O TAMMANNA DESAI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶32

¶33

OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/OHOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶34

NANASAHEB S/O TAMMANNA DESAI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI

¶35

SMT. SIDDAWWA W/O YALLAPPA GADDED AGE:75 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI

¶36

SMT.RAMAWWA W/O KRISHNAPPA BAGARNAL AGE:50 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI

¶37

SMT.HANAMAWWA W/O BHIMANAIK PATIL AGED 45 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI

¶38

SMT. VENKAWWA W/O SHANKAR NAIK AGED 45 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:HOSATTI 591227 TQ:GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI

¶39

DEEPAK S/O SHANKARAGOUDA PATIL AGED 28 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KULAGOD 591310, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶40

ARVIND S/O TIMMANAGOUDA PATIL AGED 45 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KULAGOD 591310, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI

¶41

¶42

BASAGOUDA S/O HANAMANTAGOUDA PATIL AGED 46 YEARS, OCCU:AGRICULTURE, R/O:KULAGOD 591310, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶43

... RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R20 & C/R21)

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.03.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.33/2009 ON I.A.NO.XV FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC FOR IMPLEADING PROPOSED RESPONDENTS NO.19 TO 21 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.XV FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶46

IN W.P.NOS.76023-76024/2013

¶47

BETWEEN:

¶48

PADMAWWA W/O GOUDAPPA NAIK, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULAGOUDA, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶49

SURESH S/O GOUDAPPA NAIK, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULAGOUDA,

¶50

¶51

TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶52

RAMESH S/O GOUDAPPA NAIK, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULAGOUDA, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. RATANWWA W/O RAMCHANDRAPPA LANKEPPANNAVAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULAGOUDA, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 5. DRAKSHAYANI, W/O BHIMAPPA SONAWALKAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULAGOUDA, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH A YADAWAD, SRI SACHIN S.MAGADUM, SRI B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATES) AND

¶53

NIRAMLABAI, W/O RAVIVARMA @ CHANDRAO B DESAI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. LAXMIBAI @ AKKASAHEB W/O BALAPPA @ BABASAHEB B DESAI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶54

¶55

SHRI GIREPPA @ ANNASAHEB S/O BALAPPA @ BABASAHEB TIMMAPPA B DESAI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶56

SHRI TIMMAPPA @ BALASAHEB S/O BALAPPA @ BABASAHEB B DESAI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶57

NANASAHEB @ VENKATRAO S/O BALAPPA @ BABASAHEB B DESAI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 6. SHRI DHARMARAJ @ MANJUNATH S/O RAVIVARAM @ CHANDURAO B DESAI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 7. KUMARI. JALAJAKSHI D/O RAVIVARAM @ CHANDURAO B DESAI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶58

SHRI AMBARISHVARMA S/O RAVIVARAM @ CHANDURAO B DESAI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶59

VENKANNA S/O HANUMANT B DESAI

¶60

¶61

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI,

¶62

TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶63

HANUMANT S/O YASHWANT DESAI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶64

TAMMASAHEB S/O YASHWANT DESAI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶65

SMT.AKKASAHEB W/O MARUTI BISTANNAVAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANNIGOL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶66

ANNASAHEB S/O TAMMANNA DESAI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶67

NANASAHEB S/O TAMMANNA DESAI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶68

SMT.SIDDAWWA W/O YALLAPPA GADDED, AGE: 68 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶69

RAMAWWA W/O KRISHNAPPA BAGARNAL, AGE: 43 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶70

HANAMAWWA W/O BHIMANAIK PATIL,

¶71

¶72

AGE: 38 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶73

VENKAWWA W/O SHANKAR NAIK, AGE: 38 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶74

DEEPAK S/O SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 31 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KULAGOD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶75

... RESPONDENTS

¶76

(BY SRI. R.M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8 & R16 TO 18; SRI AVINASH MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R9 TO R12 & R14; SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R19)

¶77

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2012 PASSED ON I.A.NO.9 AND 10 IN RA.33/2009 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶78

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

¶79

¶80

ORDER

¶81

Both the writ petitions arise out of R.A.No.33/2009. Hence, both are taken up together and disposed off by this common order with the consent of the parties.

¶82

W.P.No.108493/2019 is filed assailing

¶83

the order dated 29.03.2019 passed on I.A.No.15 filed under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. in R.A.No.33/2009 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. W.P.Nos.76023-24/2013 are filed assailing the order dated 26.07.2012 on I.A.Nos.9 and 10 in R.A.No.33/2009 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak.

¶84

One Smt.Taisaheb filed suit in O.S.No.235/1989 for partition and separate

¶85

possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. The suit was dismissed, against which, R.A.No.33/2009 was filed. During the

¶86

¶87

pendency of the appeal, the petitionersdefendants filed application I.A.No.9 under Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. to implead respondent No.19 and another application I.A.No.10 under Section 151 of C.P.C. to restrain the respondent No.19 from getting his name entered in the revenue records. By order dated 26.07.2012, the Trial Court dismissed both the applications. Against which, W.P.Nos.7602324/2013 are filed before this Court. Subsequently, the defendants filed I.A.No.15 under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. to implead respondent Nos.19 to 21. The said I.A.No.15 was dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.03.2019 which is the subject matter of W.P.No.108493/2019.

¶88

¶89

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶90

parties and perused the writ petition papers of both the writ petitions.

¶91

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Trial Court committed an

¶92

error in rejecting I.A.No.9 as well as I.A.No.15 for impleading additional respondent Nos.19 to 21. The respondent No.19 purchased the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit and thereafter created consent deed/partition deed and partitioned under partition deed dated 07.10.2013 among respondent Nos.19 to 21. It is his submission that they are necessary parties to the suit so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, prays for allowing IAs. Further submits that I.A.No.10 filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. to restrain respondent No.19 from getting his name

¶93

¶94

entered in the revenue records. The said

¶95

application is also dismissed consequent to dismissal of I.A.No.9.

¶96

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that interest of the petitioners are protected as the Trial Court has observed that any transaction during the pendency of the appeal would be subject to outcome of the suit. The transactions which have taken place are during the pendency of the proceedings and would be hit by principles of lis-pendense. There is no need for impleading the additional respondents in the appeal.

¶97

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the writ petition papers of both the writ petitions, I am of the view that the order passed by the Trial Court is neither perverse nor erroneous so as to call

¶98

¶99

for interference. Admittedly, proposed

¶100

respondent No.19 purchased part of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the appeal on 23.06.2012 and subsequently partition deed dated 07.10.2013 among proposed respondent Nos.19 to 21 has taken place. Both the transactions i.e. purchase and partition are during the pendency of the appeal and any decree that would passed would be binding on the purchaser. The purchase made by proposed respondent No.19 and subsequent partition is during the pendency of the appeal and the same is covered by principles of lis pendens. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petitions are rejected.

¶101

¶102

In view of disposal of the writ petitions, taking steps by the petitioners would not arise.

¶103

SD JUDGE

¶104

CLK

Smt.Padmavva W/O Goudappa Naik v. Smt.Nirmalabai W/O Ravivarma @

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt.Padmavva W/O Goudappa Naik v. Smt.Nirmalabai W/O Ravivarma @

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Hanumanth S. Jakanur Vs the Govt. of Karnataka

Sri.Ramangouda S/O Shivangouda Tiparashi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Kallappa S/O Mahadevappa Hosamani Vs the Vice-Chancellor

Mallappa S/O Mushepa Andanshetti Vs Firozkhan S/O Mehaboobkhan Pathan

Smt.K.Jhansi W/O K.Ravi Vs Smt.Aruna Kumari W/O N. Purnachendra Rao

Smt.Bhagirathi @ Sharada Vs Shri.Gulappa S/O Allappa Shivapuji