Dismissed

Sri Shivashankaraiah v. Smt Bhadrakalamma

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2021WP/5769/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the impleadment of petitioner's daughters from his first marriage in a partition suit. The High Court found the petitioners admitted the familial relationship and held the daughters were necessary parties to the joint family property dispute.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Magadi, allowing the application for impleadment is affirmed.

Sri Shivashankaraiah Vs Smt Bhadrakalamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5769 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SHIVASHANKARAIAH S/O LATE HONNAPPA @ HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O DODDERI VILLAGE CHIKKANAHALLI POST, TAVREKERE HOBI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 130.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. N V MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . SMT BHADRAKALAMMA W/O LATE HONNAPPA @ HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 98 YEARS

¶12

2 . SRI SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE HONNAPPA @ HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶13

BOTH ARE R/O DODDERI VILLAGE, CHIKKANAHALLI POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLI,

¶14

¶15

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PIN CODE - 562 130.

¶16

3 . SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE HONNAPPA @ HONNAIAH W/O MALLIAHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O MANJUNATHANAGAR JALAMANGALA ROAD, RAMANAGARAM TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562 159.

¶17

4 . SRI. T.C. BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RIGHTWAY AND KUBER PROMOTERS

¶18

5 . SRI. A.C. KALYANA BABU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RIGHTWAY AND KUMBER PROMOTERS R/AT NO.23/1, 2^ND FLOOR, RAJ COMPLEX, NGEF LAYOUT 80 FEET ROAD, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU 560 072.

¶19

6 . SMT. ANNAPURNA D/O SHIVSHANKARAIAH W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.80, SOUPARNIKA 10^TH CROSS, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, MUNESHWARANAGRA, BENGALURU – 560 056.

¶20

7 . SMT. ANURADHA D/O SHIVASHANKARAIAH W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR. B.S AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT No.41, 2^ND CROSS

¶21

¶22

MARUTHI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 40.

¶23

8 . SMT. CHANDRAKALA D/O SHIVASHANKARAIAH W/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.336, 14^TH MAIN, 8^TH 1^ST CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 040.

¶24

….RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. J HEMANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 TO R-8 R-1, R-3 TO R-5 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 8.7.2017 ON I.A.NO.8 [APPLICATION UNDER ORDER I RULE 10[2] OF CPC] PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT AT MAGADI IN O.S.NO.186/2015 [ANNEXURE-F TO W.P.]

¶27

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

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

¶30

08.07.2017, passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.186/2015

¶31

by the Senior Civil Judge, Magadi, has filed the present writ petition.

¶32

¶33

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

¶34

are as under:

¶35

The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.186/2015 for partition and separate possession of 1/4^th share in all the suit schedule properties. Respondent No.2 filed written statement. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC for impleading them as parties to the suit. The said application was opposed by the petitioner and respondent No.2, by filing objections. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, has allowed the application in I.A.No.8. Hence this petition.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶37

learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.6 to 8 are the children of the second wife of petitioner and they have no right to

¶39

¶40

claim any share in the partition during the lifetime of the petitioner. He further submits that respondent Nos.6 to 8 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. The Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 8 submits that respondent Nos.6 to 8 are the children of the first wife of petitioner and admittedly the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 have got birth right in the suit schedule properties. Hence he submits that the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶42

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶43

¶44

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.186/2015 for partition and separate possession against respondent Nos.1 to 5. In the said suit, respondent Nos.6 to 8 filed an application for impleading on the ground that they are the children of the first wife of petitioner. In the said application, respondent Nos.6 to 8 have stated as under:

¶45

“We the applicants are the daughters of the plaintiff through his 1^st wife namely Smt. Devakumari. The plaintiff has neglected, deserted and not maintain the basic legal necessities of ourself and our mother. Hence we the applicants and our mother have filed a Criminal Misc. Petition bearing No.333/1992 before the Hon’ble Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. The Hon’ble Court has granted the maintenance to us and our mother. Since we are living separately.”

¶46

¶47

The said fact has not been denied by the

¶48

petitioner in the objections filed to I.A.No.8. On the contrary, the petitioner has admitted that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also admitted that the applicants are the daughters of petitioner. In view of the admission made by the petitioner regarding his relationship with the applicants, respondent Nos.6 to 8 are necessary and proper parties. The Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

Sri Shivashankaraiah v. Smt Bhadrakalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivashankaraiah v. Smt Bhadrakalamma

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. Nagaraju. R Vs Smt. Jayamma

Sri. a R Niranjana ( Babu) Vs Sri. Venkatesh

Sri Venkataramanegowda Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mr Raja Vs Shri Raje Gowda

Sri P Veeraswamy Vs Sri P Jayakumar

M R Mahadevaswamy Vs Sudha