Dismissed

Shri. Basanagouda S/O Fakkirgouda Patil, v. Shri. Veeranagouda S/O Fakkirgouda Patil

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023WP/101329/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order allowing purchasers to be impleaded as necessary parties in a partition suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court held no reason to interfere with the trial Court's well-reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; order allowing impleadment of respondents upheld.

Shri. Basanagouda S/O Fakkirgouda Patil, Vs Shri. Veeranagouda… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13299 WP No. 101329 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 101329 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI BASANAGOUDA S/O. FAKKIRGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT KASABA ONI, SHUKRAWARPET, DHARWAD.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH & SRI UMESH P. HAKKARKI, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SHRI VEERANAGOUDA S/O. FAKKIRGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S.

¶11

1(A). VEERESHGOUDA S/O. GURANGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT HAROBELWADI, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶12

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶13

1(B). SUNIL @ SUNILGOUDA S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT HAROBELWADI, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶14

SHRI NAGESH S/O. GANGAPPA KALE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MRUTHUNJAYA NAGAR, SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13299 WP No. 101329 of 2016

¶16

SHRI HANMANT S/O. GANGAPPA KALE, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MRUTHUNJAYA NAGAR, SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶17

SHRI MARUTI S/O. GANGAPPA KALE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MRUTHUNJAYA NAGAR, SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶18

SHRI RAMESH S/O. GANGAPPA KALE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MRUTHUNJAYA NAGAR, SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶19

SHRI GANGAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA KALE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT MRUTHUNJAYA NAGAR, SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI ARUN L. NEELOPANTH, ADV. FOR R1 (A & B); SRI V.G. BHAT, ADV. FOR R2 TO R6)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2016 ON I.A.NO.III AND IV IN FDP 39/2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND C.J.M., DHARWAD, AT: DHARWAD, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND REJECT THE APPLICATIONS VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND F DATED 03.08.2015 AND 09.11.2015.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13299 WP No. 101329 of 2016

¶25

ORDER

¶26

O.S.No.58/1990 was filed by family members of the petitioner herein for partition and separate possession.

¶27

The same has been allowed and FDP.No.39/2014 is pending. In the meanwhile, defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.58/1990 have sold certain properties in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed a suit for specific performance against their vendors which has been decreed. The said order has been modified diluting the rights of the purchasers in the regular appeal against which they have preferred RSA.Nos.100521, 100522 and 100523 of 2016 which are pending before this Court. On the ground that the purchasers have certain rights in the property, they made the applications in FDP.No.39/2014 to implead themselves. The same has been allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13299 WP No. 101329 of 2016

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that, respondent

¶30

Nos.2 to 6 are not family members and are not just and necessary parties to the proceedings in FDP.No.39/2014. However, in the course of the argument, he is not in a position to deny that they purchased the rights of some of the family members in some of the properties. The trial Court for the said reason, has deemed them just and necessary parties to the proceedings and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, has ordered them to be impleaded in the proceedings. I do not see any reason to interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial Court.

¶31

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ

¶32

petition is hereby dismissed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

¶35

Shri. Basanagouda S/O Fakkirgouda Patil, v. Shri. Veeranagouda S/O Fakkirgouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Basanagouda S/O Fakkirgouda Patil, v. Shri. Veeranagouda S/O Fakkirgouda Patil

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

Shivajirao Balagouda Patil Vs Flt. Lt. Kuleep Shivajirao Patil (Retd)

Shri. Basavanni S/O Gurusidda Mokashi, Vs the Zilla Panchayat

Shri. Basavanni S/O Gurusidda Mokashi, Vs the Zilla Panchayat

Pramod S/O. Veerappa Katageri Vs Shailaja W/O. Pramod Katageri

The Managing Director Vs Gangappa Yallappa Dodawad

Geo-Marine Associates Vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.