Disposed

Smt Sumithra v. Sri Javaregowda

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2023WP/4106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 to set aside a civil court order deleting disputed property schedules. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting the deletion was the plaintiff's choice but granted liberty on related declaration claims.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to the petitioner to contend that the deletion of schedules deprives the plaintiff of entitlement for declaration against the registered Partition Deed.

Smt Sumithra Vs Sri Javaregowda — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4106 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 4106 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT SUMITHRA W/O SRI ANANTHAKUMAR N D/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 439, 3RD CROSS, KR HOSPITAL ROAD, DODDAVOKKALIGAGERI, LASHKAR MOHALLA MYSURU 570001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. AJITH KALYAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. PRIYAMVADA J.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SRI JAVAREGOWDA

¶15

S/O LATE SRI NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO 1, HOSABEEDI, KUMBARA KOPPAL, MYSURU 570002.

¶16

SRI. THIMME GOWDA S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS NO. 148, 1ST CROSS

¶17

¶18

WP No. 4106 of 2023

¶19

KRS ROAD, MATAGALLI, MYSURU - 570 016.

¶20

3 SRI. CHALUVE GOWDA S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS NO. 109 HOSABEEDI KUMBARA KOPPAL MYSURU 570 002.

¶21

SRI. VENKATARAME GOWDA S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS NO. 108, HOSABEEDI KUMBARA KOPPAL MYSURU - 570 002.

¶22

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS NO. 148, 1ST CROSS KRS ROAD

¶23

METAGALLI, MYSURU - 570 016.

¶24

SRI. THIMME GOWDA T S/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO. 148, 1ST CROSS KRS ROAD, METAGALLI MYSRURU 570 016.

¶25

SRI. CHAULVE GOWDA T S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO. 148, NEAR ADHITYA HOTAL LOKANAYAKA NAGARA,

¶26

¶27

WP No. 4106 of 2023

¶28

MATAGALLI

¶29

MYSURU 570 016.

¶30

8 SMT. SUNANDA T W/O APPAJIGOWDA D/O SRI. THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO. 145/38, 4TH CROSS NEAR ADHITYA HOTEL LOKANAYAKA NAGARA METAGALLI, MYSURU -570 016.

¶31

9 SMT. SHAKUNTHALA T W/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA D/O SRI. THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO. 145/45, 4TH CROSS NEAR ADHITHYA HOTEL LOKANAYAKA NAGARA METAGALLI MYSURU - 570 016.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03/08/2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON THE MEMO DATED 03/08/2021 IN OS NO.8/2014 PRESENTLY PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE.CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE TO AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO BRING THE CORRECT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COURT IN OS NO. 8/2014.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

WP No. 4106 of 2023

¶37

ORDER

¶38

This petition is by the ninth defendant in O.S. No.8/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru with concurrent charge of the Additional Small Causes Court, Mysuru [for short, 'the civil Court' ]. The petitioner has impugned the civil Court's order dated 03.08.2021 which reads as under:

¶39

"Sri M.D., advocate for plaintiff filed a memo and prays to delete the item No.F and G of the present suit schedule property and the same was considered in O.S No.929/2007 which was affirmed by Hon'ble District Judge in R.A. 245/2020. Hence, the F and G schedule property is deleted as per memo and the plaintiff is directed to carry out amendment accordingly."

¶40

Sri. Ajith Kalyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the first respondentplaintiff’s suit inter alia is for partition and separate possession of different immovable properties including certain extents in Sy. No.148 of Metagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru District which are

¶41

¶42

WP No. 4106 of 2023

¶43

described in Schedules-F and G appended to the plaint. The first respondent has amended the plaint to include the relief of declaration that the registered Partition Deed dated 18.10.2001 is not binding on him, and this partition deed relates to the aforesaid Schedules-F and G.

¶44

Sri. Ajith Kalyan further submits that the civil Court in permitting the first respondent to delete the Schedules-F and G has not taken note of the fact that the first respondent seeks declaration that the registered Partition Deed dated 18.10.2001 is null and void. If the Schedules-F and G are deleted, the prayer for declaration as aforesaid must fail, and the civil Court without necessary observation could not have permitted the first respondent to delete the aforesaid Schedules-F and G.

¶45

These submissions are considered, and

¶46

this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the

¶47

¶48

WP No. 4106 of 2023

¶49

impugned order as it is based on a choice made by the first respondent as the plaintiff. However, if the petitioner can take advantage of the deletion to contend that the first respondent would not be entitled to declaration as against the registered Partition Deed dated 18.10.2001, the petitioner must have necessary liberty in this regard.

¶50

Therefore, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner as aforesaid.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

AN/-

Smt Sumithra v. Sri Javaregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sumithra v. Sri Javaregowda

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

Smt. Sandya Vs Smt Kalleswari @ Kalamma

Smt. T P Manjula Vs K M Sarojamma

Mr. John David D Souza Vs Mr. Francis Lobo

Sri Annadurai Muniswamy Vs the Additional Commissioner

M/S Vijaya Bar and Restaurant Vs the Superintendent of Central Tax

Mr. Kiran Venkata Reddy Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax