Dismissed

Hanumanthappa v. Rathnamma

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2021WP/58604/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka considered two writ petitions filed under Article 227 challenging orders in final decree proceedings. Finding the underlying proceedings disposed of, the court held the petitions infructuous and dismissed them, allowing challenge via proper appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed as having become infructuous due to disposal of final decree proceedings; time for appeal enlarged.

Hanumanthappa Vs Rathnamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.17538 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.58604 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

¶7

IN WP.NO.17538/2015:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HANUMANTHAPPA S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577201 DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶10

SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶11

MALLAIAH

¶12

S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶13

HEMAVATHI D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶14

JAYAMMA

¶15

D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶16

¶17

ALL ARE R/O HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577201. AMENDED CAUSETITLE VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 27.10.2021.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

RATHNAMMA D/O LATE ARRERA LAKSHMAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O LATE HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLLALUR HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577201

¶22

SHANMUGAPPA @ SHANMUKARAO S/O LATE ARRERA LAKSHMAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577201 3. SMT. RENUKA D/O LATE ARRERA LAKSHMAPPA, DEAD BY HER LRS,

¶23

3(a) KUMARI SEEMA, D/O LATE SMT. RENUKA, AGE MAJOR,

¶24

3(b) RAJU S/O LATE SMT. RENUKA, AGE MAJOR, BOTH ARE R/O HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI,

¶25

¶26

SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577201

¶27

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.M.DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 3(a & b)(THROUGH VC) NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2 AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIMOGA, IN F.D.P.NO.2/2005 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2014 PASSED IN F.D.P.NO.2/2005 ON I.A.NO.8 ALLOWING PARTLY BY GRANTING 2/27^TH SHARE IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.3(a) & (b) IN SUIT SCHEDULE-A PROPERTY BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIMOGA, VIDE ANNEXURE-M CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.3(a) & (b).

¶29

IN WP.NO.58604/2015:

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

HANUMANTHAPPA S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577201 DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶32

SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶33

MALLAIAH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶34

¶35

HEMAVATHI D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶36

JAYAMMA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶37

ALL ARE R/O HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577201. AMENDED CAUSETITLE VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 27.10.2021.

¶38

…PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶40

RATHNAMMA D/O LATE ARRERA LAKSHMAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577201.

¶41

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.M.DESAI, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIMOGA, IN F.D.P.NO.2/2005 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2015 PASSED IN F.D.P.NO.2/2005 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIMOGA, VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND TO REJECT THE COURT COMMISSIONER REPORT VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

¶43

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

ORDER

IN WP.NO.17538/2015

The order challenging the writ petition dated 27.10.2014 in F.D.P.No.2/2005, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the final decree proceedings is disposed off and therefore, the present writ petition has become infructuous.

¶48

The Registry of this Court has also ascertained and found that final decree proceedings in FDP.No.2/2005 is disposed off on 15.04.2015.

¶49

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is

¶50

dismissed as having become infructuous .

¶51

IN WP.NO.58604/2015

¶52

In view of the order passed in W.P.No.17538/2015, this writ petition has also become infructuous.

¶53

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed as

¶54

having become infructuous .

¶55

¶56

It is open for the petitioner to challenge the final decree proceedings in an appropriate appeal.

¶57

The time consumed in pursuing these writ petitions shall be enlarged while calculating limitation.

¶58

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

NR/-

Hanumanthappa v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanthappa v. Rathnamma

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 Shantilal @ S P Jain Vs Smt Sunandamma

Philomina Pais Vs Deputy Commissioner

Precilla Pais Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S Hinduja Estate Developers Vs Smt. Chinamma

M/S Arudrama Developments Private Limited Vs M Manjula

Sri Suraksha Kantharaj Vs the State of Karnataka