Dismissed

Sri Shashidhara N R v. J Muningappa

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2021WP/17358/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two similar writ petitions filed under Article 227 challenging civil court orders rejecting applications for sale of agricultural property usufructs, the High Court of Karnataka rejected the writ petitions. The Court held that the petitioners could seek appropriate relief through the pending suit adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions against orders rejecting applications for sale of usufructs in properties subject to partition suits stand rejected. Petitioners at liberty to request common trial.

Sri Shashidhara N R Vs J Muningappa — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.16653/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

C/W.

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.17358/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶8

IN WP NO. 16653/2021:

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SRI ASHWATHAPPA D/O LATE JOOLAPPA AGED 73 YEARS, 7^TH CROSS, SHANTHINAGARA DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶11

SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE JOOLAPPA C/O CHOWDAPPA AGED 58 YEARS, NEAR GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL BHUVANESHWARINAGARA DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DIST - 561 203.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI NAVEEN ARADHYA.S, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND :

¶16

SMT SHUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE JOOLAPPA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED 71 YEARS R/AT DEVANGA BEEDHI KORATEGERE TOWN, KOTARAGERE TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 562 129.

¶17

... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER ON I.A. DTD 26.05.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.323/2018 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KORATEGERE VIDE ANNX-A.

¶18

IN WP NO 17358/2021

¶19

BETWEEN :

¶20

SRI SHASHIDHARA N R S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶21

SRI JOOLAPPA S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶22

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DHARGA JOGIHALLI KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGAURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203.

¶23

... PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. NAVEEN ARADHYA.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY. T., ADVOCATE)

¶25

¶26

AND :

¶27

J MUNINGAPPA S/O LATE JOOLAPPA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS RESIDENCE OF GOPALAPURA VILLAGE HINDUPURA TALUK ANANTHAPURA DIST ANDHRA PRADESH STATE – 515 211.

¶28

SRI J CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE JOOLAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS 31^ST WARD, 7^TH CROSS SHANTHINAGARA DODDABALLAPURA TALUK

¶29

BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 562 103.

¶30

SRI ASHWATHAPPA D/O LATE JOOLAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS HOUSE NO.2086, 19^TH WARD KONGADIYAPPA COLLEGE ROAD DEVARAJANAGARA DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 561 203.

¶31

SMT SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE JOOLAPPA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVANGA BEEDHI KORATAGERE TOWN, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 562 129.

¶32

SMT KAVERAMMA D/O LATE JOOLAPPA W/O LATE SRERAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶33

¶34

SRI LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O LATE SREERAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, PETITIONER NO. 5 AND 6 RESIDING AT SREEDEVI PROVISIONS STORE NEAR CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI CHAMUNDINAGARA MAIN ROAD HEBBAL BENGALURU – 560 024.

¶35

SMT PRAMILA D/O LATE SREERAMAPPA W/O MUNICHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WARD NO.1, BASAVESHWARANAGARA NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 562 103.

¶36

SMT SHOWBHAGYAMMA D/O LATE SREERAMAPPA W/O SRENIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT DEVANGA BEEDI KORATAGERE TOWN KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DIST – 572 129.

¶37

SMT SARASWATHI D/O SREERAMAPPA W/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT SURAPPANAPALLI MITTEMARI HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST – 561 207.

¶38

SMT NAGARATHNA D/O SREERAMAPPA

¶39

¶40

W/O ASHWATHANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶41

SMT RATHNAMMA D/O LATE JOOLAPPA C/O CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶42

PETITIONERS NO. 10 AND 11 RESIDING AT NEAR GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL VIVEKANANDANAGARA DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203.

¶43

... RESPONDENTS

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER ON IA DATED 16.06.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.53/2019 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KORTAGERE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶45

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

¶46

O R D E R

¶47

Similar orders in two separate suits, but relating to the same properties, are impugned in these petitions. Smt. Susheelamma, the respondent in the writ petition in W.P. No.16653/2021 and the fourth respondent in

¶48

¶49

the other writ petition in W.P. No.17358/2021, has filed the suit in O.S. No.323/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koratagere [for short, ' the civil Court '] for declaration of title to the agricultural lands described in the plaint schedule relying upon the Memorandum of Partition dated 12.03.2013.

¶50

The respondent's case is that her husband, late Thimmaiah, his mother and the younger brother had transferred the properties in favour of one Rajagopala Shetty; however, she and her husband repurchased this property on 17.01.1973 in the name of the petitioner's father, Sri.Joolappa, to ensure that her husband would not mismanage or alienate the properties to the detriment of the petitioner and her children. After the demise of her father on 16.10.1982 and the demise of her husband on 31.05.2012, she requested the legal representatives of her father, Sri.Joolappa, to execute necessary deed. They executed

¶51

¶52

a Memorandum of Partition dated 12.03.2013

¶53

acknowledging inter alia that she is in possession of the properties and they do not have any interest therein. But, they refused to consent for change in the revenue entries for the subject properties.

¶54

The other suit in O.S. No.53/2019 is filed by the petitioners in the writ petition in W.P. No.17358/2021 for declaration that they are entitled for one-seventh share in these very properties asserting that neither their father, J. Ramachandrappa [one of the sons of the Sri. Joolappa] nor they have signed the Memorandum of Partition and as such, these properties must be partitioned.

¶55

In these two suits, the petitioners in the writ petition in W.P. No.16653/2021 [who are the defendant Nos.3 and 10 in O.S. No.323/2018] and the petitioners in W.P. No.17358/2021 [who are the plaintiffs in O.S.

¶56

¶57

No.53/2019], have filed similar applications for sale of maize and arecanut usufructs in the suit schedule properties and for deposit of the sale consideration in a Nationalized Bank for disbursement of the amount subject to the final decision of the suits.

¶58

The civil Court, by the impugned orders, which are dated 26.05.2021 and 16.06.2021, has rejected both the applications for similar reasons. The civil Court has concluded that though the petitioners deny Smt. Susheelamma’s exclusive claim to the suit schedule properties, some of the other family members admit her claim. The civil Court has observed that the petitioners have not placed any material on record to demonstrate that Smt. Susheelamma has sufficient income to run the family after the demise of both her husband and father and that there is suppression of material facts.

¶59

¶60

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶61

submits that in the light of the indisputable fact that neither Sri. J. Ramachandrappa nor his legal representatives have signed the alleged Memorandum of Partition dated 12.03.2013, their rights in the suit schedule properties cannot be denied and therefore, the civil Court should have directed Smt. Susheelamma to deposit the usufructs as aforementioned. This Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned orders on such ground especially when the learned counsel for the petitioners does not controvert that it would still be open to the petitioners, as part of the final adjudication of the claims in the suit properties, to seek for appropriate relief.

¶62

Insofar as the submission that the suits

¶63

must be disposed of after a common trial, this Court must observe that the petitioners would be at liberty to

¶64

¶65

make such request with the civil Court which of course shall be considered by the civil Court on its own merits.

¶66

The petitions therefore, stand rejected.

¶67

SD/JUDGE

¶68

AN/-

Sri Shashidhara N R v. J Muningappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shashidhara N R v. J Muningappa

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 Arasappa Vs Sri Mahishappa

Smt. Jacintha D Souza Vs Mabel Menezes Nee D Souza

Sri S Byregowda Vs Mrs Saramma Joseph Thannickal

Kempegowda Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

Smt Saroja Vs Smt Gangamma

Sri Dinesh Vs Smt Yashodhamma