Dismissed

Hanumanthappa S/O Thippanna v. B K Hanumanthappa S/O Late Bheemappa

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2024WP/101651/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ certiorari to quash the rejection of an impleading application in a civil suit for declaration and injunction. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the Tahasildar was not a necessary party as private disputes require parties to independently establish their own title and possession.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner granted one week to deposit deficit court fee.

Hanumanthappa S/O Thippanna Vs B K Hanumanthappa S/O Late… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8006 WP No. 101651 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 101651 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. THIPPANNA AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DODDA UPPARAHALLI VILLAGE, SOVENAHALLI POST, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583128.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI.A.G.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

B.K.HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. LATE BHEEMAPPA, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583123.

¶10

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶11

THE TAHASILDAR SANDUR TALUK, SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583119.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16-11-2021 PASSED IN O.S. NO.42/2021 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SANDUR ON IA NO.14 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND FURTHER ALLOW THE IA NO. 14 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 R/W SEC. 151 CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8006 WP No. 101651 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.2.

¶21

Captioned petition is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order passed by the learned Judge on an impleading application filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.14. The said application is rejected by the learned Judge. The plaintiff has questioned the order passed on impleading application.

¶22

The plaintiff having filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.42/2021, has filed an impleading application in I.A.No.14 seeking leave to implead the Jurisdictional Tahasildar on the premises that his presence is necessary to find out as to who is in possession of the suit schedule property. The said application is rejected by the learned Judge.

¶23

The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction. It is a comprehensive suit filed by plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has to independently establish his title and possession. Since a consequential relief of injunction is sought, the plaintiff has to independently substantiate that

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8006 WP No. 101651 of 2024

¶25

he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property by leading cogent and clinching evidence. The Tahasildar is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to a private dispute between the parties. His presence is not at all required for complete adjudication. The Tahasildar, even otherwise, cannot depose as to who is in possession of the property. The application is totally misconceived and lacks bonafides.

¶26

Learned Judge has rightly rejected the application. I do not find any material irregularity in the order under challenge. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

¶27

Finally, a week's time is granted to the counsel for petitioner to deposit deficit court fee.

¶28

List this matter to report compliance 05.07.2024.

¶29

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

Hanumanthappa S/O Thippanna v. B K Hanumanthappa S/O Late Bheemappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanthappa S/O Thippanna v. B K Hanumanthappa S/O Late Bheemappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gouramma W/O Veerappa Doddamani Vs Smt. Ningavva W/O Ulavappa Nellikoppa

Omkargouda S/O Gadigeppagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ramathirth Polypacks Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Canara Bank

Shri Vithal S/O Annappa Khot Vs Smt. Akkatai W/O Ganapati Khot

Shri Devendra Aliyas Devappa S/O Ranu Ghevadi Aliyas Ghevade Vs Shri Appayya S/O Mallu Shelar

Channappa M/O Huligemma Vs Vinodabai W/O Shrinivas Pathak