Allowed

Sri. B. Revanna v. Smt. Umadevi

Karnataka HC23 May 2022WP/29498/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 227 challenging a trial court order permitting production of documents. Court held the order was non-speaking and lacking reasons, setting it aside and directing the trial court to reconsider and record reasons.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed, impugned order dated 29.06.2019 set aside, Trial Court directed to reconsider and pass order assigning reasons.

Sri. B. Revanna Vs Smt. Umadevi — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.29498 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . SRI. B. REVANNA S/O. LATE. HANUMAKKA,

¶8

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

¶9

1(A) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE B. REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶10

1(B) SRI. R. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE B. REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶11

1(C) SIR. UMESH, S/O LATE B. REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.1/1, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 1^ST BLOCK, NAGASANDRA, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU – 28.

¶13

¶14

1(D) SMT. RENUKAMMA, W/O PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, No.1/1, 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, BHOVI COLONY, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, NEAR CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL, BENGALURU – 79.

¶15

1(E) SMT. MANGALAGOWRI, W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS No.23/1, RATHNA GARDEN, VARANASHI, JINKE THIMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 36.

¶16

2 . SRI. RENUKAIAH, S/O. LATE. BANGALOORAPPA @ VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT DODDAMARANAHALLI, THAVAREKERE HOBLI, CHUNCHUNKUPPA POST, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 130.

¶17

3 . SMT. MANGALAMMA, W/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O No.70, C/O. PUTTARANGA, NEAR SAI BABA MANDIR, 1^ST BLOCK, 1^ST MAIN, THAYAGARAJANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 028.

¶18

4 . SMT. SUSHMA, D/O. LATE. SIDDAPPA, AND W/O. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.279, BHOVI COLONY, VISHWESHWARAIAH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶19

¶20

5 . SRI. GANESH, S/O. LATE. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.70, C/O. PUTTARANGA, NEAR SAI BABA MANDIR, 1^ST BLOCK, 1^ST MAIN, THAYAGARAJANAGARA, BENGALURLU - 560 028.

¶21

6 . SMT. REVAMMA, W/O. LATE LAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PRASANNACHARYAPALYA, THAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 130.

¶22

...PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. B.N. PUTTALINGAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

1 . SMT. UMADEVI, W/O. SRI. MANJUNATHA, D/O. LAET. MUTTHURAMAIAH AND GANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.525, PANTHARAPALYA, JANATHA COLONY, 160^TH CROSS, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 028.

¶26

2 . SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O. SRI. KUMAR, D/O. LATE. MUTTHURAMAIAH AND GANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, SANJEEVAPPA LANE, AVENUE ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶27

¶28

3 .	SMT. MANJULA, W/O. LATE. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
4 .	SRI. ABHILASH, S/O. LATE. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
	RESPONDENTS No.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT ADUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 106.
5 .	SIDDARAJU S/O. LATE. MUTHURAMAIAH,
	SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S
5(A)	SMT. LALITHAMMA, W/O LATE SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5(B)	KUM. CHANDANA, D/O LATE SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
5(C)	KUM. CHAITANYA, D/O LATE SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
5(D)	MASTER LOKESH, S/O LATE SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
	LRs 5(A) TO 5(D) ARE R/AT GANAKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 060.

¶29

¶30

6 . SRI. RAMALINGAPPA, S/O. LATE. MUTHURAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT GANKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 060.

¶31

7 . SRI. RAMAMUTHAIAH, S/O. LATE. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT GANKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 060.

¶32

8 . SMT. RAMAMUNIYAMMA, W/O. LATE. SRI. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT RAMLI, TAVAREKERE POST, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 562 130.

¶33

9 . SRI. MARIRAMAIAH, S/O. LATE. CHIKKAMUTTHAIAH @ MUTTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT GANKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 060.

¶34

10 . SMT. NAGAMMA, W/O. SRI. PUTTARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT CHENNENAHALLI VILLAGE, KADEYAKERE POST, THAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 129.

¶35

11 . SRI. REVANNA S/O. LATE. CHIKKAMUTTHAIAH @ MUTTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT GANKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 060.

¶36

¶37

12 . SRI. KALLAIAH S/O. LATE. CHIKKAMUTTHAIAH @ MUTTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT GANKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 060.

¶38

13 . SRI. RAMACHANDRA, S/O. LATE. CHIKKAMUTTHAIAH @ MUTTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT GANKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 060.

¶39

14 . SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. SRI. HARISH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT MACHOHALLI, BHOOPAGARMA POST, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY TEMPLE, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶40

15 . SRI. RAGHUPATHY, S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.141/2, MANJUNATHA ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 028.

¶41

16 . SRI. NIKHIL R SHETTY, S/O. SRI. RAGHUNATH M SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.286/6, VAHINI, 17^TH CROSS, 25^TH MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, 6^TH PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶42

17 . SMT. SHOBA K SHETTY, W/O. K.M. SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.199, 1^ST BLOCK,

¶43

¶44

KORAMANGALA 2^ND CROSS, BENGALURU – 560 034.

¶45

18 . SRI. RAMAMURTHY, S/O. SRI. PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.1738, 12^TH MAIN, B.S.K 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 070.

¶46

19 . SRI. U. HIRIYANNAIAH, S/O. SRI. SITARAMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT MUTTAPPA COLONY, 2^ND CROSS, SAGARA TOWN, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401.

¶47

20 . SRI. K. VISHWANATH, S/O. S. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.504, 8^TH CROSS, 7^TH BLOCK WEST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURLU – 560 082.

¶48

21 . M/S. SOMA DEVELOPERS. REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD, NO.14, AVENUE 4, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH – 500 034.

¶49

22 . SRI. DODDAIAH, S/O. KALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT GANKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 060.

¶50

23 . SRI. DODDAIAH, S/O. GALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶51

¶52

R/AT GANKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 060.

¶53

24 . SRI. KALAIAH, S/O. CHIKKADODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT GANKAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 060.

¶54

…RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SRI. V. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R6-R14; SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R17; SRI. V. GANGABAI, ADVOCATE FOR R20; SRI. SHIVARAJU T.M., ADVOCATE FOR R23 & R24; NOTICE TO R15 – R19, R21 & R22 D/W V/O DTD:25.07.2019; R3 AND R4 SERVED; R5(B – D) ARE MINORS REP. BY R5(A) SRI. V. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A).

¶56

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.06.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, PASSED IN O.S.No.6636/1994 BY THE HON’BLE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-19).

¶57

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

¶58

O R D E R

¶59

The plaintiffs filed this writ petition challenging

¶60

the order dated 29.06.2019 passed in

¶61

¶62

O.S.No.6636/1994 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19).

¶63

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court.

¶64

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶65

That the deceased Smt. Hanumakka filed a suit in O.S.No.6636/1994 seeking for the relief of partition and separate possession. The defendants No.1, 2(a) and (b), 3(a) and (b) and defendants No.4 to 7 have filed their common written statement. The defendant No.13 has filed separate written statement. The defendants No.16 and 17 have filed common written statement. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings framed the issues. Thereafter, Plaintiff

¶66

¶67

No.1(a) has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination-inchief as PW-3. Defendant No.5 has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief as DW-1. Subsequently, defendant No.5 filed an application for production of the documents. The said application came to be allowed thereafter defendant tendered the said documents in evidence. The petitioner opposed for making documents. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, permitted defendant No.5 to mark the said documents vide order dated 29.06.2019. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same as filed this writ petition.

¶68

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶70

that petitioners have raised objection for marking the documents. The Trial Court without assigning any

¶71

¶72

reasons has passed the impugned order. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is not a speaking order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶73

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.

¶74

Perused the records and considered the

¶75

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶76

The deceased Hanumakka filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, defendants appeared and filed written statement. When the matter was posted for further evidence of defendants, defendant No.5 filed an application for production of documents. The said application came to be allowed and documents will taken on record. The defendant No.5 has produced the copy of WILL and Consent Deed. The defendant No.5 is about to

¶77

¶78

mark the said documents, plaintiffs raised the objections for marking the documents. The Trial Court passed the impugned order permitting the defendant No.5 to mark the said documents.

¶79

From the perusal of the impugned order,

¶80

the Trial Court has not assigned any reasons, the order passed by the Trial Court is not a speaking order. Hence, on this alone ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶83

ii. The impugned order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Trial Court is set aside.

¶84

iii. The Trial Court is directed to reconsider the objections raised by the plaintiffs for marking the documents and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after assigning the reasons.

¶85

¶86

Since the petition itself has been disposed, I.A.No.1/2021 for early hearing, does not survive for consideration.

¶87

SD/JUDGE

¶88

GRD

Sri. B. Revanna v. Smt. Umadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. Revanna v. Smt. Umadevi

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 B Thippeswamy Vs State Bank of India

Ramee Sugar & Infrastructure Vs the Managing Director

K Shanthachanne Gowda Vs the Sagar Clinic

Smt. Pushpa Krishna Vs P Radhyshyam

M. Shamshu Khan @ M. Shamshu Sab Vs K. Gajendra

Majage Nijagunappa Vs Mantri Alphyne Apartments Owners