The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order where the principal judge rejected an application to produce additional documents from probate proceedings in a suit involving conflicting Wills and partition.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.963 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.R.JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE N.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO.55/2, 13TH CROSS 4TH MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003
ALSO AT: NO.23/1, 5TH CROSS 2ND MAIN, L.N. COLONY YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU - 560 022.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE)
AND
2
SMT.V.SHAKUNTHALA W/O SHRI R.VENKATESH REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
D/O LATE V.SHAKUNTALA W/O N.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT 13TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN MALLESWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5/ DEFENDANT NOS.2(B) TO 2(D) ARE RESIDING AT PLAT NO.G-3 SATHYA CARNATION APARTMENT NO.8, 9 AND 10, SATHYA ENCLAVE HENNUR MAIN ROAD GEDDALAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 043
3
RESIDING AT OPP. TO BEHTHNEY SCHOOL ADUGODI POST, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560036
…..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.2055/2007 C/W 26275/2007 ON I.A.NOS.9 TO 11 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
4
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NOS.9 TO 11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER - DEFENDANT NO.1 FOR ADDUCING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND PERMIT HER TO MARK THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FOR PRODUCTION UNDER THE SAID IAS FILED BY THE PETITIONER - DEFENDANT NO.1 IN THE SUIT UNDER QUESTION VIDE ANNEXURE A1 TO A3 AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 questioning the order of the learned Judge passed on I.A.Nos.9 to 11 in O.S.No.2055/2007 c/w O.S.No.26275/2007.
a suit for partition and separate possession by claiming half share through one Smt.Rathnamma alleging that the said Rathnamma had half share in the estate of her son Radhakrishna Reddy. The present petitioner claims to be the widow of the said Radhakrishna Reddy and she is arrayed as defendant
5
No.1 before the Court below. Defendant No.1 asserts absolute title over the suit schedule property not through inheritance but by way of alleged bequeath made by her husband during his lifetime. The present petitioner has also set up a Will. Both the parties have lead in evidence to substantiate their claim. When the matter is set down for arguments, it appears that the present respondent No.6 filed impleading application to come on record. The respondent No.6 - defendant No.6 has also set up a Will alleging that Radhakrishna Reddy has bequeathed the suit schedule properties in her favour. Therefore, she claims to be absolute owner of the suit schedule properties.
6
contention of the petitioner is that defendant No.6 had filed a petition before the Probate Court, which on contest was converted into a suit, however, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on account of defendant No.6 failure to pay prescribed court fee. Therefore, defendant No.6 has opted to get herself impleaded in the present suit to seek redressal of her claim based on the Will.
intends to produce all these documents, which were part of the probate proceedings in P & SC No.143/2009. By way of additional documents, the petitioner intends to produce copy of the petition, order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court confirming the order on the impleading application. The learned Judge has rejected these applications by observing that these documents are not at all necessary for effective adjudication of controversy
7
between the parties. The learned Judge was of the view that these documents are not at all relevant and therefore, there is no need to take these additional documents on record. It is this order, which is under challenge.
right and title over the suit schedule properties by claiming that Radhakrishna Reddy died intestate and therefore, respondent No.1 - plaintiff, who is the full brother of Radhakrishna Reddy, is claiming half share through his mother. Respondent No.1 - plaintiff claims that his mother during her life time having acquired half share by way of inheritance has
8
bequeathed her half share in the suit schedule properties under the Will dated 11.10.1988. The present petitioner, who claims to be the widow of N.Radhakrishna Reddy, is also asserting right by contending that during the life time of N.Radhakrishna Reddy, he has bequeathed the suit schedule properties under the Will dated 18.11.1979 and defendant No.6 is also asserting right under the Will dated 05.05.1980.
9
remove all suspicious circumstances in terms of the above said provisions. Therefore, this Court is unable to understand as to how these additional documents, which are the copy of the petition filed in P & SC No.143/2009 by the defendant No.6 and orders on the impleading application and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court confirming the orders on the impleading application are relevant to the lis . No grounds are made out. The said documents have no relevancy to the present controversy between the parties. Therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner cannot be permitted to produce these additional documents and then invariably seek re-opening to lead further evidence. All these exercise seem to be futile exercise. If it is permitted, it would protract the hearing of the very suit. It is in this background this Court would find that the order passed by the learned Judge is in accordance with law and would not warrant
10
any interference at the hands of this Court. I do not find any error or infirmity in the order under challenge.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
devoid of merits.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in rejecting applications for permitting the petitioner to produce additional documents from probate proceedings.
Whether there would be any interference by the High Court in the order observed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge.
JAYALAKSHMI
NAGARAJU
SHAKUNTHALA (SINCE DEAD BY LRS.)
SARALA
PREMA
NAVEEN
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
