Dismissed

Sri Chethankumar v. Smt Manjula

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2021WP/4575/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 227 seeking to set aside a lower court order rejecting an application for directing a deposit in a partition suit. The court declined to interfere, finding the value involved significant enough not to warrant the petitioner's prayer.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to move an appropriate application in the court below regarding the first item of 'B' Schedule Property if grounds exist.

Sri Chethankumar Vs Smt Manjula — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4575 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI CHETHANKUMAR, S/O LATE THONTARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O C/O BHASKARACHAR, SREE RAKSHA NILAYA, 6^TH CROSS, BEHIND PETROL BUNK, VIDYANAGARA, TIPTUR TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SMT. MANJULA, W/O LATE THONTARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O BEHIND CHINMAYI-KRISHNA MANDIRA, VIDYANAGARA, TIPTUR TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.

¶13

2 . SMT. RANJITHA T, W/O O NINGAPPA ANDRALU, D/O LATE THONTARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O 4^TH CROSS, NEAR GELEYARA BALAGA BUS STAND, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096.

¶14

NOTE: THE OBJECTION TO IA.NO.8 IS FILED BY D-1 ONLY. HENCE OBJECTION OF D-2 IS NOT FURNISHED.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL

¶17

¶18

JUDGE AND JMFC AT TIPTUR, IN O.S.NO.27/2017, VIDE ANNEXURE-H, THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION, FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner being the defendant in a partition suit in O.S.No.27/2017 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 12.2.2021, a copy whereof is at Annexure-H whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tiptur having rejected his application filed u/s 151 of CPC, 1908, has refused to direct the 1^st respondent to deposit in the court below the amount which he has received on a maturity of Fixed Deposits.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the value of property involved in the suit is considerable and that the share otherwise allotable to the 1^st respondent arguably will have the value more than the deposit amount; thus, justice of the case does not warrant grant of petitioner’s prayer in the applications, as has been rightly opined by the learned Judge of the court below.

¶24

¶25

Writ Petition is disposed off with the above observations.

¶26

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move an

¶27

appropriate application to the court below in respect of first item of ‘B’ Schedule Property if grounds do exist.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

cbc

Sri Chethankumar v. Smt Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chethankumar v. Smt Manjula

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. T. Xavier Vs Sharmila

Smt. D. Pallavi Vs Smt. Chinnamma

Sri Zakir Hussain Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahangara Palike

Late Smt Gangamma Vs Late Sri Eshwaraiah

Smt. Pushpavathi Vs Sri S Vasanth Kumar

Smt Meenakshi Vs Sri M K Mohandas