Dismissed

Smt. S. Swetha v. Smt. Devamma

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2022WP/42150/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 sought to quash an order passed in an original suit and permit the filing of a partition deed. The court, finding that the petitioners had filed an application to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty to urge arguments on the Trial Court, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn; petitioners are at liberty to urge the contention before the Trial Court.

Smt. S. Swetha Vs Smt. Devamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.42150/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. S. SWETHA W/O. M.C. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, 13E CROSS, KEMPEGOWDANAGARA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶8

SMT. NINGAMMA .K W/O. LATE N. SEENAPPA ALIAS SEENAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT ABALAVADI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401. ... PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY MR. SURESH D. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. DEVAMMA W/O. LATE NANJEGOWDA @ CHIKKATHAMMAIAH @ CHIKKATHAMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT ABALAVADI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶12

SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O. SHANKAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. NAMBINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶13

¶14

KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶15

SMT. THAYAMMA W/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. ANEDODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶16

N. NANJAPPA S/O. NANJEGOWDA @ CHIKKATHAMMAIAH @ CHIKKATHAMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶17

C. BILIYAPPA S/O. NANJEGOWDA @ CHIKKATHAMMAIAH @ CHIKKATHAMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶18

C. SHANKARAPPA S/O. NANJEGOWDA @ CHIKKATHAMMAIAH @ CHIKKATHAMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT ABALAVADI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶19

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. DEVARAJU @ SIDDAIAH, D/O. NANJEGOWDA @ CHIKKATHAMMAIAH @ CHIKKATHAMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401. ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY MR. K.B. SATHISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4, R-6 AND R-7, MR. G. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MADDUR IN O.S.NO.13/2013 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO MARKED UNREGISTERED PARTITION DEED DATED 26.10.1997.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petition be dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to urge the observations made by this Court reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3613 before the Trial Court and to that effect, memo is filed, which reads as under:

¶26

“The Petitioners in the above matter pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn with a liberty to urge the observations made by this Hon’ble Court in a reported decision reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3613 before the Trial Court, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

Wherefore, the Petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the

¶28

¶29

writ petition as withdrawn with a liberty to urge the observations made by this Hon’ble Court in a reported decision reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3613 before the Trial Court, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶30

The submission and memo are placed on

¶31

record.

¶32

In light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and in view of the memo, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is needless to observe that petitioners are at liberty to urge the contention before the Trial Court as stated in

¶33

the memo.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

MBM

Smt. S. Swetha v. Smt. Devamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S. Swetha v. Smt. Devamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Muni Reddy Vs Smt Sarojamma

N K Prakash Babu Vs Smt. Roopalaxmi

Lokesh @ K P Lokesh Kumar Vs Syed Sadiq Basha

S Ramegowda Vs v Thimmegowda

Smt Geethamma Vs Sri K R Siddaiah

Pritpal Singh Vs the Registrar