Dismissed

Pujar Shivappa @ Sudha v. Gouramma

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022WP/101960/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order in a partition suit dismissing an application to admit an unregistered Apsat Vatni Patra as evidence of prior partition. Court held the document was a partition deed requiring registration, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order denying admission of the unregistered document remaining in force.

Pujar Shivappa @ Sudha Vs Gouramma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101960 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101960 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PUJAR SHIVAPPA @ SUDHA HANAMAPPA IRAPPA CHALAGERI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶8

(BY MISS.VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

GOURAMMA W/O HALLAPPA @ DODDA HALAPPA KALER @ KALI, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: BELUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶11

HERAMMA W/O DELLAPPA CHALAVADI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: MEDLARI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶12

SHEKAPPA W/O ANJANAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: BELUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

¶15

WP No. 101960 of 2017

¶16

MALAVVA W/O GURASHANTAPPA CHALAVADI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: ANTARAVALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶17

SHARADAVA W/O NAGARAJ KCHALAVADI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: BELUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶18

KARABASAPPA S/O HALAPPA @ DODDAHALLAPPA KALER @ KALI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶19

NEELAPPA S/O HALAPPA @ DODDAHALLAPPA KALER @ KALI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶20

MANJULA W/O GUDAPPA KALER @ KALI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: BELUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. DAYANAND M BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5, NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:16.01.2017 ON IA NO.7 PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, RANEBENNUR IN O.S.NO.76/2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-G.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

WP No. 101960 of 2017

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

“To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated:16.01.2017 on IA NO.7 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, and JMFC, Ranebennur in O.S.No.76/2012 as per Annexure-G.”

¶30

O.S.No.76/2012 was filed by the sisters against the brothers seeking for partition of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.4 being a purchaser of one of the properties filed an application under I.A.No.7 seeking for permission to mark a Apsat Vatni Patra dated 22.10.1997 claiming that under the said Apsat Vatni Patra the properties of the family had been partitioned and came to the share of the vendor of the petitioner and as such the same was relevant.

¶31

The said application came to be objected to by the sisters contending that the said document would amount to a partition deed which is compulsorily

¶32

¶33

WP No. 101960 of 2017

¶34

registerable under Section 17 of Indian Registration Act. It is accepting the said contention that the trial Court vide its impugned order dated 16.01.2017 dismissed the application by holding that the document is silent about an earlier partition and partition having taken place under Apsat Vatni Patra which is unregistered document cannot be considered. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the document reads that a partition has been effected before the panchayatdars and thereafter the possession and enjoyment of the property is vested with individual persons and therefore it is only a recordal of the partition which has already taken place and as such Apsat Vatni Patra does not require registration.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 101960 of 2017

¶38

Learned counsel for respondents would however contend that difference between the first portion or later portion of the document inasmuch as the later portion would indicate that the said document has been executed infront of panchas on 22.10.1997 and it is agreed before the panchas that the brothers would partition the above properties in the manner stated in the document and would henceforth have possession and enjoyment as detailed therein. Therefore, he submits that the said document is not a recordal of an earlier partition but is a partition deed by itself which would require registration and therefore submits that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application and this Court ought not to intercede in the matter.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the papers.

¶40

¶41

WP No. 101960 of 2017

¶42

The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of partition recorded in Apsat Vatni Patra, defendant No.4 has purchased the property in the year 1998 under a registered sale deed and it is therefore clear that the said property is no longer available for partition in the suit filed by the sisters, the sale having occurred prior to the 20.12.2004.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that in order to establish that the partition had occurred, for invoking the proviso to Section 6 (5) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended, the said document is required to be exhibited.

¶44

The said contention in my considered opinion cannot be countenanced in law and fact. What is required to be seen is whether the document sought to be exhibited could be got marked as evidence or not. As submitted by Sri.Dayanand Bandi, portion of the document categorically stating that agreement had

¶45

¶46

WP No. 101960 of 2017

¶47

been arrived at before the panchas and henceforth the parties would abide by the partition, be in possession, enjoyment of the possession as contended therein, Apsat Vatni Patra cannot be said to be a recordal of an earlier partition but only said to be a partition entered into on that date. Thus, the reasoning of the trial Court being just and proper, does not require any interference.

¶48

As regards the other contention as to applicability or otherwise of proviso to Section 6 (5) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it is for the petitioner to establish the same before the trial Court.

¶49

In the above circumstances, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. The petition stands dismissed.

¶52

SH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

Pujar Shivappa @ Sudha v. Gouramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pujar Shivappa @ Sudha v. Gouramma

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

The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. Vs C. M. Mallikarjunaswamy S/O Madaiah

C M Mallikarjuna Swamy S/O Madaiah, Vs the Divisional Controller

Stanzen Links (India) Ltd., Vs Sri D K Narayana

Hanamant Vs Sunil

Smt. Gouravva W/O. Shankargouda Baadiyavar Vs Smt. Pampavati

Shri. Vasant Durgappa Harijan Vs Shri. Shantappa Durgappa Harijan