Allowed

Dhanalaxmi Sahakari Sakkare v. Padadayya S Gaddadmath

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2019WP/108969/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions quashing an order rejecting applications to recall witnesses in a suit for declaratory relief. The Court directed the trial Court to frame a preliminary issue on the suit's maintainability regarding the validity of a government land grant before recalling witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside applications under Order 18 Rule 17/Section 151 CPC was quashed; applications allowed with conditions on maintainability determination.

Dhanalaxmi Sahakari Sakkare Vs Padadayya S Gaddadmath — Property and Title | 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.108969/2014 (GM-CPC) & WRIT PETITION NO.109500/2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DHANALAXMI SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITH OF KHANAPETH VILLAGE KAHANPETH, RAMDURG REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J. M. & SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR, ADVS.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

PADADAYYA S. GADDADMATH S/O. SANGAYYA GADDADMATH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. KHANAPETH VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶13

NINGANGOUDA M. PATIL S/O. MALLANGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. HALOLLI, RAMDURG

¶14

GADIGEPPA B. HONNIKOLLA S/O. BHIMAPPA HONNIKOLLA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. HANAMSAGAR VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶15

VENKANGOUDA G PATIL S/O. GOUDAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O. KUNNAL VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶16

¶17

BALAPPA B GHATI S/O. BASAPPA GHATI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. HANAMASAGAR, RAMDURG

¶18

BHIMAPPA Y. CHIPPALAKATTI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. HANAMASAGAR, RAMDURG

¶19

MALLAPPA D. BHAGOJI S/O. DODDABASAPPA BHAGOJI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. HALOLLI VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶20

BASSAPPA S. YARAGATTI S/O. SHANKRAPPA YARGATTI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. HANAMASAGAR VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶21

VITTHAL B. BUKKATAGI S/O. BHIMAPPA BUKKATAGI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. HANAMASAGAR, RAMDURG

¶22

MALLIKARJUN V. KURBET S/O. VEERBHADRAPPA KURBET AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. KATKOL VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶23

MARUTI S. HAGED S/O. SHESHAPPA HAGED AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. HANAMASAGAR VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶24

APPANNA C. JANGANNAVAR S/O. CHANNAPPA JANGANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. KATKOL VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶25

¶26

FARKIRAPPA N. KANVI S/O. NAGAPPA KANVI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶27

ASHOK M. HALIYAL S/O. MAHANTAPPA HALIYAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶28

RAMCHANDRA V. NIMBALKAR S/O.VITTHAL NIMBALKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. HARLAPUR VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶29

NINGAPPA M. HALLUR S4/O. MALLAPPA HALLUR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. HANAMSAGAR VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶30

YALLAPPA B. BELLAKKI S/O. BHIMAPPA BELLAKKI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶31

DUNDAPPA M. GOMADI S/O. MAHADEVAPPA GOMADI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. BASARGI VILLAGE SOUNDATTI

¶32

RAMAPPA B. HALLI S/O. BHIMAPPA HALLI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. M CHANDARGI VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶33

BASAVANNEPPA B. GANDAD S/O. BALAPPA GANDAD AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶34

¶35

21.	PATTREPPA B. LOKAPUR S/O. BASAPPA LOKAPUR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. M CHANDARGI VILLAGE RAMDURG
22.	TAMMANNA B. AKKISAGAR S/O. BASALINGAPPA AKKISAGAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. M CHANDARGI VILLAGE RAMDURG
23.	RAMAPPA N. KATTI @ HADIMANI S/O. NINGAPPA KATTI @ HADIMANI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. M CHANDARGI VILLAGE RAMDURG
24.	HANAMANT S. JOGI S/O.SHIDRAYAPPA JOGI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. TORANAGATTI VILLAGE RAMDURG
25.	BHIMAPPA Y. KANVI S/O. YALLAPPA KANVI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE RAMDURG
26.	IRNAIK P. MADDI S/O. PANDU NAIK MADDI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. KANKANWADI VILLAGE RAMDURG
27.	ISHWAR B. HALIYAL S/O. BASAPPA HALIYAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE RAMDURG
28.	RAMAPPA F. KANVI S/O. FAKIRAPPA KANVI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
	R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE RAMDURG

¶36

¶37

FAKIRAPPA B. YALKANCHI S/O. BALAPPA KANVI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. RAMAPUR VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶38

MAHADEVAPPA B. LATTI S/O. BASAPPA LATTI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. RAMAPUR VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶39

NAGAPPA F. JOGI S/O. FAKIRAPPA JOGI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O. BASARGI VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶40

FAKIRAPPA L. TYAPI S/O.LAXMAPPA TYPAI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶41

BHIMAPPA B. METI S/O. BASAPPA METI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶42

VITTHAL Y. KANVI S/O YALLAPPA KANVI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶43

HANAMANTAPPA M. KANVI S/O. MAHADEVAPPA KANVI AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, R/O. KHANPETH VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶44

NAGAPPA M. LATTI S/O. MAHADEVAPPA LATTI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. RAMPUR VILLAGE, RAMDURG

¶45

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR G M R INDUSTRY HYDARABAD BRANCH OFFICE, AT RAMDURG ... RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. V. P. VADAVI FOR SRI.B V SOMAPUR, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. I. M. BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 – R36; SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R37)

¶47

¶48

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:14.08.2014 IN OS.NO.185/2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., AT RAMDURG, ANNEXURE-F AND TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.16 & 17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W.151 OF CPC., BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.

¶49

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

¶50

ORDER

¶51

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

¶52

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the common order passed on I.A.Nos.XVI and XVII in O.S.No.185/2008, whereby the trial Court was pleased to reject the applications filed under Section 151 and Orders 18 Rule 17 of CPC to reopen from the stage of defendants’ evidence and permit the defendant/applicant to cross-examine PW2 to PW6 and also to recall PW2 to PW6 and submit themselves to cross-examination. The said applications came to be rejected by the trial Court on the premise that, despite sufficient opportunity being granted on payment of cost,

¶53

¶54

the applicant has failed to take advantage and repeated applications cannot be entertained and that no justifiable ground is made out by the applicant for allowing the application.

¶55

Be that as it may. It is fairly admitted by the counsels that the suit is one for declaration of easementary rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ 1^st defendant has specifically contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that the plaintiffs have not called in question the order of the State Government granting lands to the Sugar Factory. There appears to be merit in the said contention.

¶56

Hence, to cut the long story short, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside and accordingly the applications are allowed. The said exercise of recalling the witnesses shall be after the trial Court renders a finding on the issue regarding maintainability of the suit. It is fairly

¶57

¶58

submitted by the learned counsel that the land in question is a Government land and the land has been granted to the 1^st defendant, who has established a sugar factory and that the plaintiffs are claiming a right of way.

¶59

Be that as it may. The point for consideration is as to whether the rights as claimed by the plaintiffs survive or not when the grant is free of all encumbrances? These are matters that have gone into and adjudicated after affording an opportunity to the parties. Whether the trial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the CPC can adjudicate upon the validity of the grant or the rights conveyed to the 1^st defendant under the grant proceedings.

¶60

In that view of the matter, the trial Court shall frame a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit and shall render a finding after affording an opportunity to the parties. The trial Court shall endeavour to render a finding within three

¶61

¶62

months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Parties shall not seek unnecessary adjournments or adjournments on frivolous grounds. The trial Court shall record its reasons for granting adjournment and shall endeavour to comply with the directions as hereinabove. In the event the trial Court arrive at the conclusion that the suit is maintainable, then the trial Court shall proceed to re-open and recall the witnesses for disposal of the suit in accordance with law.

¶63

Petitions stand ordered accordingly. The amount in deposit before the trial Court pursuant to the order dated 13.01.2015 shall be disbursed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

gab

Dhanalaxmi Sahakari Sakkare v. Padadayya S Gaddadmath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalaxmi Sahakari Sakkare v. Padadayya S Gaddadmath

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.

Bangarewwa Appanna Waded Vs Basappa Kallappa Vaded

Anand Babu Holer @ Kambale Vs Sharnappa Parasappa Kambale

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