Petitioners challenged an order directing the drawing of final decree proceedings to restore the respondent's 1/3rd share in suit properties, citing Vineeta Sharma. Court dismissed the petition, holding the modification aligns with supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
petitoners were denied relief, and petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BMSPJ: 03.11.2022
ORDER
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 15467 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
RB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15467 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/AT HARAVE VILLAGE HARAVE HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR 571128
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH H V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.NAGAMMA D/O LATE ANGADI CHANNABASAPPA W/O M C BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MOODNAKODU VILLAGE HARAVE HOBLI CHAMARAJANGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR 571128
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 23.09.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGAR IN F.D.P.NO.7/2016 ON I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER SECTION 152 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AT ANENXURE-G; DIRECT THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGAR TO DRAW FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS IN FDP NO.7/2016 AT ANNEXURE-G IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 15.06.2012 AT ANNEXUREA PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGAR CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR DTD 04.12.2015. AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is by the respondents in FDP.No.7/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chamarajanagar (for short, ' the civil Court '). The petitioners have impugned the civil Court's order dated 23.09.2021, and the civil Court by this order has modified the preliminary decree in O.S.No.28/2010 declaring that the respondent would be entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit in O.S.No.28/2010 was initially decreed declaring that the respondent would be entitled for 1/3rd share, but that is modified in the appeal in R.A.No.25/2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chamarajanagar
and with this decision, the respondent would only be entitled to 1/9th share and there cannot be modification of the preliminary decree.
However, the civil Court has modified the preliminary decree, which is altered by the appellate Court, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 and the undisputed fact that Sri. Late Channabasappa @ Angadi Channabasappa had three [3] children viz ., the petitioners and the respondent and in the R.A.No.25/2012, the respondent's share is altered because of the law as it stood then. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to controvert that the respondent's share must be altered in view of Vineeta Sharma's case (supra) as the proposition would apply to all pending matters even if pending in final decree proceedings. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a High Court can direct the drawing of final decree proceedings in compliance with Vineeta Sharma to align shares with the law as it stood then despite the preliminary decree being in Final De
Whether the modification of the preliminary decree by the Civil Court in Final Decree Proceedings is maintainable.
Whether the petition to quash the order is justified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and OrsDistinguished¶27
(2020) 9 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. H. C. Guruswamappa
Sri. H. C. Shivamallappa
Smt. Nagamma
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
