Allowed

Smt Mahadevamma v. Smt Rajamani @ Rajamma

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2021WP/50798/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 challenged the dismissal of an impleadment application in a partition suit. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower court order based on the fact that sale deeds were executed by respondents after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2004 came into effect. Respondents 4 and 5 were directed to be impleaded.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing I.A. No.10 is set aside, and the application to implead respondents 4 and 5 as defendants is allowed.

Smt Mahadevamma Vs Smt Rajamani @ Rajamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.50798 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS EARLIER AT NEXT TO BANNUR BUS STAND BANNUR TOWN

¶9

NOW RESIDING AT BEHIND SRI. BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE HOSA HUNDAVADI VILLAGE K.R.SAGAR, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438 …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]

¶11

AND :

¶12

SMT. RAJAMANI @ RAJAMMA W/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶13

SRI. MANJU S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶14

¶15

SRI. MALLESHA S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶16

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT MEGALAPURA VILLAGE ILAWALA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK-570 016

¶17

SRI. MARISIDDE GOWDA S/O PATEL CHIKKA ANKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDENT OF MAAVINAHALLI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI

¶18

MYSORE TALUK-570 008

¶19

SRI. SHIVE GOWDA S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF MYDANAHALLI VILLAGE ILAWALA HOBLI

¶20

MYSORE TALUK-570 001

¶21

SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O SRI. PUTTABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF HINKAL ILWALA HOBLI

¶22

MYSORE-570 016

¶23

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O SRI. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT MAHADEVANAHUNDI VILLAGE, BILIKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK-571 105

¶24

SMT. NANJAMANI W/O SRI. SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT RATTANAHYALLI

¶25

¶26

ILAWALA HOBLI

¶27

MYSORE TALUK-570 016 ... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SHRI. D.K. LOKESH FOR

¶29

SHRI. P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATES FOR R4; SHRI. V. MANJUNATH PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5 - [ABSENT] R1-R3 & R6-R8 SERVED)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.31.8.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.811/2007 BY THE COURT PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, ON I.A.NO.10 VIDE ANNEX-H AND ALLOW I.A.NO.10.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Petitioner is first plaintiff in O.S. No.811/2007, a suit for partition, pending on the file of District Judge, Mysuru. Plaintiffs have filed I.A. No.10 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead respondents No. 4 and 5 as defendants. Learned Trial Judge has dismissed the said application on the ground that the proposed defendants had purchased the property in the year 2003 and plaintiffs have not placed any material to show that the proposed defendants are necessary parties. Hence, this writ petition.

¶34

¶35

Shri. Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned Advocate

¶36

for petitioner has submitted that sale deeds are dated 30.03.2007 (Annexure-F) and 08.02.2008 (Annexure-G).

¶37

The proviso of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 makes it clear that any alienation prior to 20.12.2004 shall not be affected.

¶38

Admittedly, the aforementioned Sale deeds are after 20.12.2004 and they have been executed by respondents No. 1 to 3. Therefore, the reason recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the properties were purchased in the year 2003 is factually incorrect. Therefore, this writ petition merits consideration. Hence, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(a) Writ petition is allowed .

¶41

(b) Order dated 31.08.2016 on I.A. No.10 in

¶42

O.S. No.811/2007 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, is set-aside.

¶43

¶44

¶45

allowed. Respondents No.4 and 5 shall be impleaded as

defendants.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

SPS

Smt Mahadevamma v. Smt Rajamani @ Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mahadevamma v. Smt Rajamani @ Rajamma

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 Anand R Moola Vs Smt. Anjinamma

Chikkarama Reddy Vs N.C. Rudra Reddy

M/S Queens Corner Apartment Vs Mr. Naveen Shetty

Sri H Dayakara Reddy Vs Dr Sreedhar Y

Gopi Krishnan Vs R a Anand

Smt Manjula Devi Vs Sri S Gururaj