Dismissed

Sri. Nagappa v. Smt. Lalita

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023WP/145303/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of an application for a witness summons to the Sub-Registrar under CPC provisions in a partition suit. The court held that the sale deed documents were not the subject matter of the suit and defendants could produce certified copies. The writ petition was dismissed as unnecessary interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition against the order rejecting the witness summons application dismissed as no interference is called for.

Sri. Nagappa Vs Smt. Lalita — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 145303 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 145303 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NAGAPPA S/O. IRAPPA MALAKOTI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF VARUR, TAL: HUBLI.

¶9

SRI VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. IRAPPA MALAKOTI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF VARUR, TAL: HUBLI.

¶10

SRI. VINAYAK S/O. IRAPPA MALAKOTI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF VARUR, TAL: HUBLI.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI LAXMAN C KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) (ABSENT)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Date: 2023.03.25 13:35:39 +0530

¶15

SMT. LALITA W/O. DURGAPPA WADDAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: VARUR, TAL: HUBLI-581207.

¶16

SHRI SHIVARAJ S/O. DURGAPPA WADDAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT-581207. R/O: VARUR, TAL: HUBLI.

¶17

KUMARI DEEPA D/O. DURGAPPA WADDAR, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: VARUR, TAL: HUBLI-581207. REP BY NATURAL MOTHER THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS MINOR GUARDIAN

¶18

KUMARI YASHODA D/O. DURGAPPA WADDAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: VARUR, TAL: HUBLI-581207. REP. BY NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 AS

¶19

¶20

WP No. 145303 of 2020

¶21

MINOR GUARDIAN

¶22

SRI DURGAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA WADDAR AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: VARUR, TAL: HUBLI-581207.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2002-2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.16 FILED UNDER ORDER XVI RULE 1,5,6,7 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/DEFENDANT NO.2 TO 4 IN OS NO.77/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUBLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW I.A.NO.16 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The present petitioners who are defendants No.2 to 4 filed an application under Order XVI Rules 1, 5, 6 and 7 read with Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to issue witness summons to Sub-Registrar, Hubballi to produce documents in respect of Sale Deed dated 16.4.1994 pertaining to agricultural land bearing Sy.No.110/1. The said application is rejected by the learned Judge by holding that the documents sought to be summoned through SubRegistrar have no bearing on the suit and the claim made by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the said documents are not

¶28

¶29

WP No. 145303 of 2020

¶30

necessary for adjudication of controversy between the parties. The said order is under challenge.

¶31

2. Respondents No.1 to 4 have instituted a suit for partition and separate possession. The documents sought to be summoned at the instance of defendants No.2 to 4 pertain to sale transaction in respect of Sy.No.110/1, which is not subject matter of the partition suit. Even otherwise defendants No.2 to 4 can very well produce the certified copies of the said documents to lead rebuttal evidence to substantiate their defence. This aspect is rightly taken note of by the learned Judge. Learned Judge while rejecting the application has also observed that nothing prevents defendants No.2 to 4 in producing certified copy of the said sale deed. Therefore, order under challenge does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed .

¶32

SD/JUDGE

¶33

JTR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri. Nagappa v. Smt. Lalita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagappa v. Smt. Lalita

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

Krishna Shaniyara Naika, Occ. Business Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Subhas S/O Bharamappa Muttagi, Vs Smt.Kasturewwa W/O Shankrappa Savalagatagi

Shri.Tirakappa S/O Halappa Vs Gonappa S/O Huligeppa

Sri.Dayanandachar S/O Purvachar Poojar Vs Vishwakarma Samaj Vikas Sansthe

Shri Vijay S/O Basavant Chougule Vs Smt. Akshata W/O Vijay Chougule

Sri.Basavanne S/O. Bharamappa Hanji Vs Smt.Shrimanta W/O.Mahalingayya Hiremath