Single judge allowed the petition setting aside the order rejecting a witness summons. Held the dispute was regarding family necessity of the sale deed execution rather than execution itself necessitating witness testimony.
Impugned order set aside and witness summons to defendants detailed in Annexure-A of I.A.20 directed to be issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 20150 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 20150 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED, S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, R/AT K HOSAKOPPALU, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: High Court of Karnataka
HASSAN TALUK-573201.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OLD, D/O MOHAN KUMAR, RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4
WP No. 20150 of 2021
ARE RESIDING AT K HOSAKOPPALA, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN-573201.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OLD, S/O THIMMEGOWDA, HAMPANAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDHA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573118.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OLD, W/O KUMARA, R/AT K HOSAKOPPALA, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN-573201.
WP No. 20150 of 2021
S/O JAVARASHETTY, R/AT MOSALE HOSAHALLI, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573212.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O RAMEGOWDA, R/AT BANVASE GRAMA, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573220.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, R/AT MARAGONDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573112.
WP No. 20150 of 2021
R/AT NEAR CHKKABASTI ROAD, HASSAN-573201.
…RESPONDENTS
(V/O/DT: 19.11.2021 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5 TO R14 ARE DISPENSED WITH, R1 TO R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.689/2010 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC HASSAN. QUASH THE FURTHER ORDER PASSED ON IA NO.20 DTD.16.9.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HASSAN IN O.S.NO.689/2010 AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The service is completed as regards respondents 1 to 4. It is submitted that respondents 1 to 4 are the only contesting parties. Notice to the other respondents has been dispensed with as it was submitted that the said respondents are not necessary for adjudication of the present writ.
WP No. 20150 of 2021
petition seeking for setting aside of the order passed on I.A.20 dated 16.09.2021 at Annexure-A, whereby the trial Court has rejected the request for issuance of witness summons to defendants 1 and 2 and accordingly, the request for defendants 1 and 2 to give evidence has been rejected.
petitioner would submit that defendant No.4 is the purchaser of property through Ex.D.3 stated to have been executed by defendants 1 and 2. It is further submitted that purpose of examining defendants 1 and 2 is for the purpose of demonstrating as to the circumstances under which sale deed at Ex.D.3 was executed. It is further submitted that defendants 1 and 2 are the parents of plaintiff and that some the defendants constitute a joint family and accordingly, it could be demonstrated that Ex.D.3 was executed by defendants 1 and 2 for family necessity and that the same would be binding on all the
WP No. 20150 of 2021
members of the joint family which is an issue that could be adjudicated. It is further pointed out that admittedly, defendants 1 and 2 have not come before the Court to lead evidence and accordingly, the application was filed to examine defendants 1 and 2.
Application - I.A. 20 is allowed and the trial Court to issue
WP No. 20150 of 2021
witness summons to the witnesses detailed at Annexure-A
of I.A.20.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed .
Sd/JUDGE
VP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to issue a witness summons to defendants to prove family necessity regarding a sale deed.
Whether the dispute is regarding execution of the execution of the sale deed or its validity for family necessity.
Channegowda
M Divya
Mohan Kumar
Nagalakshmi
Kavya
Lokeshgowda
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
