Disposed

Sri Mahesh v. Sri B K Hindushekar

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2022WP/7374/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 challenges the High Court's rejection of an order that dismissed applications to bring the mother on record as the sole legal heir and to discharge the guardian in a suit. The High Court found the civil court did not consider relevant circumstances regarding the plaintiffs attaining majority.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to file review application in the civil court.

Sri Mahesh Vs Sri B K Hindushekar — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7374/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI MAHESH

¶8

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O SRI B K HINDUSHEKAR RESIDING IN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN SY NO.32/17 BEHIND HOTEL RASA GANGA OUTER RING ROAD BELLANDUR VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE-560037.

¶9

SRI VARUN AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS S/O SRI B K HINDUSHEKAR

¶10

MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND SMT V SARASWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O SRI HINDUSHEKAR RESIDING IN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN SY NO.32/17 BEHIND HOTEL RASA GANGA, OUTER RING ROAD BELLANDUR, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560037.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. Y V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND :

¶15

SRI B K HINDUSHEKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE R KRISHNAPPA SINCE DECEASED

¶16

SRI K ESHWAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE R KRISHNAPPA NO.25/1, 12^TH CROSS BELLANDUR VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560103.

¶17

SRI G GANESHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O SRI GOPALA REDDY NO.20, 12^TH CROSS BELLANDUR VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560103.

¶18

SRI G E RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI IRIYAPPA RESIDING AT NEAR KALWARI CHURCH ADARSHA NAGAR MALUR TOWN, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶19

SMT V SARASWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O SRI HINDUSHEKAR RESIDING IN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN SY NO.32/17 BELLANDUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560103.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2022 PASSED ON IAs IN O.S.2990/2011 BY THE COURT OF THE 34^TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-35) VIDE ANNX-L AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This petition is by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.2990/2011 on the file of the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court' ]. The civil Court by the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 has rejected the petitioners' applications under Order XXII Rules 4 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'the CPC'] as also their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶26

¶27

The petitioners have instituted this suit through their mother and next friend, Smt. V. Sarasathamma when they were minors. They have instituted the suit against their father who is no more and others. The present application is filed to bring on record their mother as the sole legal heir of the deceased father. The civil Court has rejected these applications opining that the mother is prosecuting the suit on behalf of the minor children, and as such, she cannot be brought on record as the legal heir of the deceased father.

¶28

Sri Y V Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that one of the petitioners viz . the first petitioner had attained majority even before the father's demise and the appointment of guardian insofar as this petitioner is discharged and he is prosecuting the suit on his own. This material circumstance has not been considered by the civil Court. Sri Y V Prakash

¶29

¶30

also submits that after the impugned order, the second petitioner has attained majority and the applications are filed for discharge of the guardian. He canvasses that in the aforesaid circumstances, the applications could not have been rejected on the ground of conflict of interest.

¶31

It is obvious on perusal of the impugned order that the civil Court has not considered the circumstances relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The suit is of the year 2011 and there must be an expedited decision. Therefore, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file application before the civil Court for review of the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 in O.S. No.2990/2011.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

AN/-

Sri Mahesh v. Sri B K Hindushekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahesh v. Sri B K Hindushekar

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

Smt Narayanamma Vs Sri T N Chandraiah

Venkatachalappa Vs Smt.Ashwathamma

Sri S Ramesha Vs M/S Margadarsi Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. G Rangaswamy Vs Smt Saroja

Sri.H.C.Guruswamappa Vs Smt.Nagamma

H G Mouneshwarappa Vs Sadashivappa