Allowed

Sujitkumar S/O. Malanagouda Patil v. Kallappa S/O Shivaling Atyal

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2023WP/100016/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, regarding property dispute. The Court set aside the order due to lack of opportunity to the petitioner and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.10.2022 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

Sujitkumar S/O. Malanagouda Patil Vs Kallappa S/O… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100016 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100016 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUJITKUMAR S/O MALANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SAVALAGI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT- 587330.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRISH A.YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KALLAPPA S/O SHIVALING ATYAL AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SAVALAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT - 587330.

¶13

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶14

SANGAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA ATYAL AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SAVALAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT - 587330.

¶15

SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA ATYAL AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SAVALAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT - 587330.

¶16

PRAKASH S/O. KALLAPPA ATYAL AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SAVALAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT - 587330.

¶17

DUNDAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA ATYAL AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SAVALAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT - 587330.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 100016 of 2023

¶20

SIDDAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA ATYAL AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SAVALAGI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT - 587330.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMKHANDI, ALSO THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007, COURT COMPOUND, JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.

¶22

THE TAHASILDAR, JAMKHANDI JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT – 587301.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRINIVAS K.NADAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI ANAND ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R5 AND R6; SRI PRASHANT V.MOGALI, HCGP FOR R7 AND R8; NOTICE TO R4 SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/10/2022 IN NO. MSC/HI.NA/CR/08/2021-22 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 7 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. (B) DECLARE THAT THE AUTHORITIES CONSTITUTED UNDER THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO ENTERTAIN THE APPLICATIONS FOR MUTATING THE NAMES IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS OR ANY APPLICATION OF SUCH NATURE DURING THE PENDENCY OF CIVIL LITIGATION AND WHERE THERE ARE DECREES PASSED IN FAVOUR OF THE OTHER PARTIES AND ISSUE PROPER GUIDELINGES IN RESPECT OF THE SAME.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated

¶28

27.10.2022 passed by respondent No.7/Assistant Commissioner/Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance

¶29

¶30

WP No. 100016 of 2023

¶31

and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

The material on record discloses that respondent No.1 is the father of respondents No.2 to 4. There is a dispute between petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 in respect of one of the subject properties which is pending adjudication before this Court in RSA No.100782/2022. So also there is a dispute in RFA No.100506/2022 pending before this Court in relation to the subject property. In this context, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal will indicate that though the Tribunal has referred to aforesaid disputes in relation to the subject property being pending consideration and having directed the parties to be bound and abide by the final outcome of the said disputes, to which the petitioner herein is a party, the Tribunal has issued certain other directions in relation to the schedule property without providing any opportunity to the petitioner who is a party to RSA No.100782/2022. Under these circumstances, in the light of the undisputed fact that there is a

¶34

¶35

WP No. 100016 of 2023

¶36

reference to the petitioner in the impugned order and since he is also a party to RSA No.100782/2022 which is also in relation to the one of the subject properties, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to proceed further in accordance with law. In the result, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The petition is allowed.

¶39

ii. The impugned order dated 27.10.2022 is hereby set aside.

¶40

iii. The matter is remitted back to the 7^th respondent/Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hearing him as well as all other parties in accordance with law.

¶41

SD JUDGE

¶42

CLK/List No.1, Sl No.: 38

Sujitkumar S/O. Malanagouda Patil v. Kallappa S/O Shivaling Atyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujitkumar S/O. Malanagouda Patil v. Kallappa S/O Shivaling Atyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Savitha W/O Late Badarinarayan Padaki Vs Smt. Manjula W/O Late Govindarao Padaki

Prateek S. Goudru Vs Union of India

Rukmini W/O Late Parushram Birje Vs the City Corporation Belagavi

G Parshuram S/O Gondbal Manappa Vs the Director of Marketing

Smt. Mahadevi W/O Mahadev Tavadar Vs Alagonda Balagonda Patil

K Zahedullah S/O. Ameer Asadullah Vs the Authorised Officer