Dismissed

Sri. G. Anjanappa v. Sri. Ramakrishnappa

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2023WP/11719/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ under Article 227 challenging civil court order allowing commissioner's fee. High Court quashed petition, directing civil court to expedite proceedings. Petitioner advised to challenge share entitlement via final decree court file, not writ, citing Vineeta Sharma.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of calling upon final decree Court to expedite conclusion reserving liberty to petitioner regarding shares in final decree proceedings.

Sri. G. Anjanappa Vs Sri. Ramakrishnappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:29507 WP No. 11719 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11719 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. G. ANJANAPPA S/O. LATE KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O. GULAKAMELE VILLAGE, THARALU POST, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 062.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

¶14

SMT. VANAJAKSHI,

¶15

1(A) W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:29507 WP No. 11719 of 2017

¶17

1(B) SMT. RADHA D/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶18

1(C) SMT. R. SANGEETHA D/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO. 4, 3RD MAIN ROAD, SANJEEVININAGAR, MOODALAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶19

SMT. SARASWATHAMMA @ SARASWATHI W/O. LATE VENKATESH, MAJOR,

¶20

SRI. SASIDARA S/O. LATE VENKATESH, MAJOR,

¶21

V. BHARATHI D/O. LATE VENKATESH, MAJOR,

¶22

V. MEENAKSHI D/O. LATE VENKATESH, MAJOR,

¶23

R2 TO R5 ARE RESIDING AT YAMALUR HAL POST, BENGALURU-560 037.

¶24

SMT. PAPAMMA W/O. NARAYANAPPA, MAJOR,

¶25

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA,

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:29507 WP No. 11719 of 2017

¶27

MAJOR,

¶28

VENKATAPPA MAJOR,

¶29

KRISHNAPPA S/O. VENKATAPPA, MAJOR, R6 TO R9 ARE RESIDING AT YAMALUR HAL POST, BENGALURU-560 037.

¶30

PAPAIAH S/O. SANKAREDDY, MAJOR, RESIDING AT YAMALUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, HAL POST, BENGALURU-560 037.

¶31

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O. MUNIAPPA, W/O. MUNIKRISHNA, KELAGINATHOTA, CHIKKABALLAPURA, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶32

VENKATAPPA S/O. RAMAIAH, MAJOR,

¶33

SRINIVAS S/O. VENKATAPPA, MAJOR,

¶34

R12 AND R13 ARE RESIDING AT NO.43, YAMALUR, YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU-560 037.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:29507 WP No. 11719 of 2017

¶37

VIJAYA MAJOR, W/O. SATHYANARAYANA, SARASWATHIPURAM, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008.

¶38

15. RAMESH

¶39

S/O. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.43, YAMALUR, YAMALUR POST, BANGALORE-560 037.

¶40

SAROJA

¶41

MAJOR, W/O. NARAYANAPPA, R/O. NO.294, RAJARAJESHWARI ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. (KARNATAKA).

¶42

VENKATASUBBAIAH. S. @ GANGADHARAPPA S/O. M. SUBBAIAH, MAJOR,

¶43

G. SRINATH S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH @ GANGADHARAPPA, MAJOR,

¶44

V. KESHVAMURTHY S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH @ GANGADHARAPPA, MAJOR,

¶45

V. MADHU S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH @ GANGADHARAPPA, MAJOR,

¶46

R17 TO 20 ARE RESIDING AT

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:29507 WP No. 11719 of 2017

¶49

NO.497, KUMBARA BEEDI, HESARAGHATTA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH C.K, ADVOCATE FOR R11R13 AND R17 - 20;

¶52

SRI. ANJANEYA A.B., ADVOCATE FOR R14(A-C), R15 (A-C);

¶53

NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.08.2021)

¶54

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN FDP NO.141/2003 BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU (CCH-13) ON THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 17.01.2017 AT ANNEX-A TO W.P.

¶55

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

¶56

ORDER

¶57

This petition is filed calling in question the order dated 17.01.2017 in FDP.No.141/2003 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru [for short, ' the final decree Court '], and the final decree Court by this order has accepted the memo filed by the sixth to ninth defendants for permission to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/as

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:29507 WP No. 11719 of 2017

¶60

Commissioner's fee overruling the objections in that regard.

¶61

The final decree Court's order is in the light of the orders of this Court in R.F.A.No.462/2003, which is confirmed with the dismissal of SLP No.4247/2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner, who is one of the defendants in the suit, proposes to contend that the applicants - plaintiffs - in the final decree proceedings will not be entitled for 1/6th share as decreed in R.F.A.No.462/2003 and hence, the final decree Court could not have permitted the concerned to deposit the Commissioner's fee.

¶62

It appears from the grounds urged that

¶63

this writ petition is filed in the light of the decision in

¶64

the case of Prakash and Others Vs. Phulavati and

¶65

Others¹ . None appears for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

¶66

1 (2016) 2 SCC 36

¶67

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:29507 WP No. 11719 of 2017

¶69

petitioner has neither carried out the amendment in this petition nor furnished requisites pursuant to this Court's order dated 27.07.2023, and the suit commenced in the year 1985 is still pending consideration. The learned counsel for the respondents seeks leave to place on record a photocopy of the registered Partition Deed dated 25.11.2019. The learned counsel is permitted, and the same is taken on record.

¶70

The final decree Court by the impugned

¶71

order has only accepted the Commissioner's fee and no exception can be taken with such orders. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the share described in the light of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh

¶72

Sharma² , he must pursue such grievance before the final decree Court. The observation in this regard is subject to all just exceptions, and similarly, if any of

¶73

2 SLP(C) No.684/2016 dated 11.08.2020.

¶74

¶75

NC: 2023:KHC:29507 WP No. 11719 of 2017

¶76

the respondents want to impeach the petitioner's conduct because of the execution of the Partition Deed dated 25.11.2019 during the pendency of these proceedings, they must also pursue the same before the final decree Court.

¶77

In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of calling upon the final decree Court to expedite conclusion of the proceedings reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue any grievance insofar as the shares allotted and the partition by metes and bounds in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's recent decision in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra) .

¶78

Hence, the petition stands disposed of with the observations as aforesaid.

¶79

SD/JUDGE

¶80

Sri. G. Anjanappa v. Sri. Ramakrishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. G. Anjanappa v. Sri. Ramakrishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri P N Narsimha Murthy Vs the Additional Commissioner for Transport and Secretary, Ksta

Sri Shivakumaraswamiji Vs Smt. Nagarathnamma

M N Ramesh Vs Sri S Mukesh

Sri.N.Jayaramappa Vs Principal Secretary

Smt. Manjula Vs Sri.B.C.Halaiah

Shri Ramaswamy Vs Smt. Doddathayamma @ Ambika