Disposed

Sri. Vaman Naggappa Patil v. Smt. Tulasa W/O. Yallappa Balekundri

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2023WP/100929/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filing under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The court modified the impugned trial court order to record common evidence in O.S. No. 253/2015 regarding partition instead of O.S. No. 55/2015.

What did the court decide?

Direction to trial Court to record common evidence in O.S. No. 253/2015 instead of O.S. No. 55/2015.

Sri. Vaman Naggappa Patil Vs Smt. Tulasa W/O. Yallappa Balekundri — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14316 WP No. 100929 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 100929 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. VAMAN S/O. NAGGAPPA PATIL, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASTWAD (H), TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶8

SHRI MAHADEV S/O. NAGGAPPA PATIL, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASTWAD (H), TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶9

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶10

SHRI MARUTI S/O. NAGGAPPA PATIL, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASTWAD (H), TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶11

SHRI JYOTIBA S/O. NAGGAPPA PATIL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASTWAD (H), TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14316 WP No. 100929 of 2023

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. TULASA W/O. YALLAPPA BALEKUNDRI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, PATIL GALLI, NAGENHATTI VILLAGE, POST K.K. KOPPA, TALUK: AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-590003.

¶17

SMT. ANJANA W/O. JYOTIBA PATIL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASTWAD (H), TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-590003.

¶18

SRI. DILIP S/O. YALLAPPA PATIL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YERMALE, TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-590003.

¶19

SMT. RUKASANA W/O. MAINUDDIN BIJAGARNI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLDWORK, R/O. HOUSE NO.1555, NAVI GALLI, SHAHAPUR, TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-590003.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH ALLANNAVAR, ADV. FOR SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2, R3 & R4 ARE SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14-11-2022 FILED I.A. NO.9 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR CLUBBING OF O.S. NO. 55/2015 AND O.S. NO. 253/2015, CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S. NO. 55/2015 PENDING BEFORE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM BELAGAVI. THE COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IS AT ANNEXURE-F.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14316 WP No. 100929 of 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, in clubbing O.S.No.55/2015 and O.S.No.253/2015, pending in the same Court, the present writ petition is filed.

¶27

Admittedly, the property which is the subject matter of O.S.No.55/2015 is also the subject matter of O.S.No.253/2015. O.S.No.253/2015 pertains to partition and separate possession of the properties which are said to be belonging to the family of petitioners and respondents No.1, 2 and 3. O.S.No.55/2015 pertains to sale of some of the properties in favour of respondent No.4 herein. For that reason, the trial Court has clubbed both cases pending on its file and has ordered that common evidence be recorded in O.S.No.55/2015.

¶28

After arguing the matter for some time, advocate for the petitioners submits that he has no objection for the original suits to be clubbed and heard

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14316 WP No. 100929 of 2023

¶30

together. But he requests that evidence should be recorded in O.S.No.253/2015 instead of O.S.No.55/2015, as evidence has already commenced in O.S.No.253/2015 and the said suit is one for partition and separate possession and the issue involved in O.S.No.55/2015, which pertains to cancellation of the sale deed in respect of one of the properties in favour of respondent No.4, can be properly adjudicated only upon deciding the rights of petitioners and respondents No.1 to 3, who belong to the same family, in respect of the properties concerned.

¶31

Advocate for respondent No.1 is not in a

¶32

position to dispute the aforementioned factual matrix.

¶33

For the aforementioned reasons, it is just and proper to have the evidence recorded in O.S.No.253/2015 instead of O.S.No.55/2015 and hence the impugned order requires modification to that effect.

¶34

Hence the following:

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14316 WP No. 100929 of 2023

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to record common evidence in O.S.No.253/2015 instead of O.S.No.55/2015, pending on the file of the

¶38

Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

gab ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri. Vaman Naggappa Patil v. Smt. Tulasa W/O. Yallappa Balekundri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vaman Naggappa Patil v. Smt. Tulasa W/O. Yallappa Balekundri

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

Bharata Ratna Ambedkar Sc/St Co. Operative Society Limited Mugalkhod Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahantesh S/O. Chavappa Bhangi Vs the Managing Director

Basalingappa S/O. Virappa Shahapur Vs the Commissioner

Manjunath S/O Pandurang Revankar Vs State Bank of India

Sri Sayyed Shiraj -Ahmad S/O Sayyed Abdulsab Hubballi and Others Vs Bibifatima W/O Mahammadiliyas Khazi

Giriyappa Mallappa Magi, Vs the State of Karnataka