Allowed

Smt Bharathi Hadimani Alias G M Bharathi W/O Late G M Prakash v. Smt G M v Veeramma W/O Late G M Gurubasavaraj

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2023WP/104120/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner prayed for a direction to the trial court to dispose of three pending applications (IA Nos. 2, 5, and 7) in an ordinary suit for partition. The court dispensed with notice to respondents and directed the trial court to decide the applications. Respondents: Sri Anoop G.Deshpande Seni

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to dispose of IA Nos. 2, 5 and 7 and pass orders within one month from 02.08.2023.

Smt Bharathi Hadimani Alias G M Bharathi W/O Late G M Prakash Vs… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6943 WP No. 104120 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 104120 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. BHARATHI HADIMANI @ G.M. BHARATHI W/O. LATE G.M. PRAKASH, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. WARD NO.5, NEAR MALLAMMA TEMPLE, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.

¶10

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI MKANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶11

KUMARI. ABHIGYA D/O. LATE G.M. PRAKASH, AGE: 09 YEARS, OCCU: STUDENT, R/O. WARD NO.5, NEAR MALLAMMA TEMPLE, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. BHARATI HADIMANI @ G.M. BHARATI.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. G.M. VEERAMMA W/O. LATE G.M. GURUBASAVARAJ, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 7^TH WARD, KOTTUR ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6943 WP No. 104120 of 2023

¶18

DIST: VIJAYNAGAR-583131.

¶19

SRI G.M. PRADEEP S/O. LATE G.M. GURUBASAVARAJ, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, R/O 7^TH WARD, KOTTUR ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: VIJAYNAGAR- 583131.

¶20

SMT. VIJAYLAXMI WODEYAR, D/O. LATE G.M. GURUBASAVARJ, W/O. RAVI ODEYAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, SAHADEVA BHAVANA, HUBLI ROAD, DHARWAD: 580001.

¶21

SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, D/O. LATE G.M. GURUBASAVARJ, W/O. SHIVAPRAKASH HIREMATH, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, TAPOVANA NAGAR, HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD:580008.

¶22

SMT. GEETA T.M. D/O. LATE G.M. GURUBASAVARJ, W/O. T.M. SHIVAPRAKASH, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, NO.601, 4^TH CROSS, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, SAHANA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560079.

¶23

SMT. SHALINI SALIMATH, D/O. LATE G.M. GURUBASAVARJ, W/O. SHASHIDHAR SALIMATH, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, ANUGRAHA, PLOT.NO.226, 2^ND STAGE, AKSHAY COLONY, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI- 580030.

¶24

SRI G.M. GURUPADSWAMI, S/O. NEELAKANTA SHASTRI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE, HOOVINAHADAGALI–583219.

¶25

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6943 WP No. 104120 of 2023

¶26

SRI SHANTAVEERAYYA S/O. KOTRABASAYYA, AGE: ADULT, OCCU: AGRICULTURE, 7^TH WARD, MEGALPETE, HARAPANAHALLI–583131.

¶27

SRI SHIVALINGAYYA S/O. VIRUPAKSHAYYA, AGE: ADULT, OCCU: AGRICULTURE, 7^TH WARD, MEGALPETE, HARAPANAHALLI–583131.

¶28

B. ALLABHAKSHI

¶29

S/O. ALLABHAKSHASAB, AGE: ADULT, OCCU: AGRICULTURE, 9^TH WARD, HARAPANAHALLI–583131.

¶30

SMT. A.M. PADMAVATHI W/O. LOKANATH, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, HIPPITHOTA, 4^TH WARD, HARAPANAHALLI-583131.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER BY DIRECTING THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI TO PASS ORDER ON I.A.NO. 2 DATED 17.11.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-C, I.A.NO. 5 DATED. 28.11.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND I.A.NO. 7 DATED 30.01.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-F IN O.S.NO. 113/2022.

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6943 WP No. 104120 of 2023

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners files a memo for dispensation of notice to respondents as no relief is claimed against them.

¶39

The relief claimed by the petitioners in this petition is only to an extent of direction to the trial Court to dispose of the application IA Nos.2, 5 and 7 in OS No.113/2022 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Harapanahalli.

¶40

This petition is filed by the plaintiff wife. Suit in OS No.113/2022 is filed by the wife for the relief of partition and separate possession against the defendants. The defendant Nos.8 to 10 before the trial Court were made as parties as their names were reflected in the RTC entries. Hence, they were made as parties to the suit proceedings though they are not members of the family. Petitionerplaintiffs took out notice to all the defendants including

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6943 WP No. 104120 of 2023

¶42

defendant Nos.8 to 10. The notice issued to defendant Nos.8 and 9 was returned with the postal shara as "Deceased". Thereafter, plaintiff made several attempts to trace legal representative of defendant Nos.8 and 9. But plaintiff was unable to get the details of the legal representatives and all efforts went in vain to trace the legal representatives of deceased defendant Nos.8 and 9. Therefore, left with no other alternatives, plaintiff filed application IA No.2 before the trial Court under Order 22 Rule 4A of CPC praying to proceed in the matter in the absence of persons who are deceased.

¶43

Thereafter, plaintiff has filed IA No.5 to permit her to

¶44

take out notice to the legal heirs of deceased respondent Nos.8 and 9 by way of substitute service through news paper publication. Subsequent to which plaintiff filed another application in IA No.VII under Order 16 Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of CPC praying to summon the documents from the Town Municipal Counsel and the Tahasildar of Harapanahalli. These three applications are filed by the plaintiff in IA Nos.2, 5 and 7 have not been decided yet by

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6943 WP No. 104120 of 2023

¶46

the trial Court and no orders have been passed. Aggrieved

¶47

by the non-passing of the orders on IA Nos.2, 5 and 7, petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus for direction to the trial Court to dispose of the applications by passing orders on the same. As the matter came to be posted for passing of orders on 11.01.2023, subsequently, matter has been adjourned on one reason or the other, no orders have been passed. Hence, this petition.

¶48

This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents so also in view of the fact that the petitioners have sought for dispensation of notice to respondents as no relief is claimed against respondents. Same is accepted.

¶49

When applications are filed before the trial Court, it becomes the duty of the Court to pass orders in accordance with law, either to allow the application or to reject the same. In the present case, three applications

¶50

are filed on 17.11.2022, 28.11.2022 and 31.01.2023.

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6943 WP No. 104120 of 2023

¶52

Though the arguments on these applications are heard

¶53

and posted for orders on 11.01.2023 and on 06.03.2023, thereafter, the matter has been again posted for further hearing on IA No.7.

¶54

Without going into the merits of the applications, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition. Hence, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

Petition is allowed.

¶57

The trial Court is directed to dispose of the

¶58

applications and pass orders on IA Nos.2,5 and 7 within one month from 02.08.2023 on which date the regular hearing is listed before the trial Court.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

HMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt Bharathi Hadimani Alias G M Bharathi W/O Late G M Prakash v. Smt G M v Veeramma W/O Late G M Gurubasavaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bharathi Hadimani Alias G M Bharathi W/O Late G M Prakash v. Smt G M v Veeramma W/O Late G M Gurubasavaraj

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

Sayyed S/O Husain Mulla Vs Gulab Husainsab Mujawar Since Deceased by Her Lrs. I.E.Respondent NO.1 to 4 Herein

Smt. Dakshani W/O Basavaraj Pedla Vs the State of Karnataka

Duragavva W/O Ramanna Dhupanm Vs State of Karnataka

Siddanagouda S/O Nagangouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Fakiravva D/O. Basappa Banappanavar Vs Smt. Paratevva D/O. Basappa Banappanavar

Sri Betadappa Vs Smt Shankarawwa