Dismissed

Sri. Lagamanna v. Kumari Sandhya

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023WP/100431/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by defendants challenging an order directing a Sugar Factory to deposit sugarcane dues pending a partition suit. The Court held there was no illegality in the injunction, as it ensured plaintiffs received livelihood income while defendants managed family resources.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits, upholding the lower court's order to deposit the sugarcane bill amount.

Sri. Lagamanna Vs Kumari Sandhya — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11856 WP No. 100431 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.100431 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. LAGAMANNA S/O. BHAGAPPA NASALAPURE AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NANDIKURLI, TQ. RAIBAG.

¶9

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O BHAGAPPA NASALAPURE AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. NANDIKURLI, TQ. RAIBAG.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

KUMARI SANDHYA

¶14

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶15

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2023.10.12 11:32:00 +0530

¶16

D/O BEERAPPA @ BEERA NASALAPURE AGE: 06 YEARS, OCC: NIL SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER MINOR GUARDIAN R2 HONNAMMA W/O BEERAPPA @ BEERA NASALAPURE AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD R/O. NANDIKURALI, TAL. RAIBAG PIN CODE - 591317

¶17

SMT. HONNAMMA W/O. BEERAPPA @ BEERA NASALAPURE AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD R/O. NANDIKURALI, TAL. RAIBAG PIN CODE – 591317

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11856 WP No. 100431 of 2022

¶19

KUMAR SANDESH S/O. BEERAPPA @ BEERA NASALAPURE AGE. 06 YEARS, OCC. NIL SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER MINOR GUARDIAN R2 HONNAMMA W/O BEERAPPA @ BEERA NASALAPURE AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD

¶20

R/O NANDIKURALI, TAL. RAIBAG PIN CODE – 591317

¶21

SRI. BEERAPPA @ BEERA S/O. BHAGAPPA NASALAPURE AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. NANDIKURALI, TAL. RAIBAG PIN CODE - 591317

¶22

BHAGAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA NASALAPURE AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. NANDIKURALI, TAL. RAIBAG PIN CODE - 591317

¶23

SMT. LAGAMAWWA W/O. BHAGAPPA NASALAPURE AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE R/O. NANDIKURALI, TAL. RAIBAG PIN CODE - 591317

¶24

SRI. DUNDAPPA S/O. BHAGAPPA NASALAPURE AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. NANDIKURALI, TAL. RAIBAG PIN CODE – 591317

¶25

SRI. MARUTI S/O. BHAGAPPA NASALAPURE AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. NANDIKURALI, TAL. RAIBAG PIN CODE – 591317

¶26

SMT. SHANAKKA W/O SHRIKANTH BUDURE AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. JALAPUR, TQ. RAIBAG PIN CODE – 591317

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11856 WP No. 100431 of 2022

¶28

SMT. SONAKKA W/O. LAGAMANNA HIREKURBAR AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. YADRANV, TQ. RAIBAG PIN CODE – 591317

¶29

SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. SURESH CHIGARE AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. DATTAWAD, TQ. HATKANAGALA DIST. KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE PIN CODE – 416109.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.A.P.MURALI, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; R.1 & R.3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN – R.2; R.4 – SERVED; NOTICE TO R.5 TO R.11 STANDS WAIVED)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO ISSUE DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07-01-2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.703/2017 BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-RAIBAG THEREBY PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO-5 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The captioned writ petition is filed by the defendant Nos.4

¶36

and 6 assailing the order of the learned Judge passed on I.A.No.5 filed by the plaintiffs seeking a direction against the

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11856 WP No. 100431 of 2022

¶38

Sugar Factory to deposit sugarcane bill in respect of 254 tonnes of sugarcane sent by the defendants grown in the suit schedule properties.

¶39

The learned Judge has partly allowed the application and by tentively assessing the share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties has directed the Sugar Factory to deposit sugarcane bill amount to the tune of 28.22 tonnes in the Court.

¶40

On examining the materials on record, this Court would find that the wife of defendant No.1 and daughter of defendant No.1 by name Sandhya have instituted a suit for partition and separate possession alleging that defendant No.1 has neglected the plaintiffs. It is, on this set of cause of auction, the plaintiffs have instituted a suit seeking their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. If the learned Judge by taking cognizance of the relationship between defendant No.1 and plaintiffs has exercised judicial discretion and issued a direction to the Sugar Factory to deposit the plaintiffs legitimate share pending consideration of the partition suit, I do not find any illegality in the order under challenge.

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11856 WP No. 100431 of 2022

¶42

If the defendants are managing and controlling the entire resources of the joint family ancestral properties, the plaintiffs to eke out their livelihood and to lead a decent life are entitled to receive the income generated from the ancestral properties pending consideration of the partition suit. Seldom partition suits are decided within a short span but it consumes considerable time. If the plaintiffs are kept at bay denying the income generated from the ancestral property, the defendants in all probabilities will take advantage of this factual matrix and will indulge in protracting hearing of the partition suit. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge to deposit tentative share of the plaintiffs would act as deterrent and it would be in the interest of the plaintiffs. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge.

¶43

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

Sri. Lagamanna v. Kumari Sandhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Lagamanna v. Kumari Sandhya

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 Sathish Kumar M Vs the Police Inspector

Sri. Om Prakash Vs Sri. Basavaraj Swamy

Mahesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Kumar Rahul S/O Krushnagouda Pail Vs Ranganaagouda S/O Lachappagouda Patil

Sri. Ilahi S/O Mehabubsab Soudagar Vs Sri. Meerasab S/O Miyaasab Bagawan

Smt. Jayashree W/O Krishnarao Kulakarni Vs Smt. Sudha W/O Rajendra Gunjikar