Dismissed

Hanmantsingh Urf Hanumantappa Shankarappa Nandihalli Urf Nandilli v. Smt. Lalitabai Alias Yallavva W/O Laxmaaansingh Jamadar

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024WP/102629/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a trial court order dismissing an application for production of specific documents in a property dispute. The High Court held the application was unnecessary for adjudication given the plaintiff's burden of proof, dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it is devoid of merits; no interference with the lower court order.

Hanmantsingh Urf Hanumantappa Shankarappa Nandihalli… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7594 WP No. 102629 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 102629 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HANMANTSINGH URF HANUMANTAPPA SHANKARAPPA NANDIHALLI URF NANDILLI

¶9

AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED TEACHER, R/O. NEAR KENCHAMMA TEMPLE, DEVAGIRI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI 581110 (REP.BY GPA HOLDER PETITIONER NO.2)

¶10

KIRANSINGH S/O HANUMANTHSINGH @ HANUMANTAPPA NANDIHALLI ALIAS NANDILLI AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. PART-TIME LECTURER, R/O. DEVAGIRI, NEAR KENCHAMMA TEMPLE, DEVAGIRI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI 581110

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. A P MURARI.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. LALITABAI @ YALLAVVA W/O LAXMANSINGH JAMADAR AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUTTAL, HALIVASTI, AHVERI, C/O. LAXMANSINGH S/O SHANKARSINGH JAMADAR, R/O. HAVERI, NEAR CHAOUDAMMA TEMPLE, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, HOSANAGAR ROAD, HAVERI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI 581110

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADV. FOR C/R)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7594 WP No. 102629 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR OTHER ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E DATED. 09-02-2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAVERI IN O S NO. 231/2018 DISMISSING THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 7 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The captioned petition is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 assailing the order passed by the learned Judge on I.A.No.7 filed under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC seeking directions to the plaintiff to produce the Will dated 08.11.2016 and cancellation deed dated 09.11.2016. The said application is rejected by the learned Judge on the ground that these documents are not necessary for complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7594 WP No. 102629 of 2024

¶25

The plaintiff instituted a suit contending that suit properties were originally owned by plaintiff and defendants mother Savantrevva. The plaintiff further alleged that her mother bequeathed the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. However, later these Wills were cancelled. Plaintiff further disputed the relinquishment deed executed by Savantrevva in respect of ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties in favour of defendant No.2 and contended that relinquishment deed is not binding on the plaintiff’s legitimate share. The trial court has framed an issue in that regard at issue No.2 and the burden is cast on the plaintiff to substantiate that relinquishment deed said to be executed by Savantrevva on 16.11.2016 and 22.02.2017 are illegal and not binding on her. If the burden is on the plaintiff, this court is unable to understand as to why the defendants are insisting the plaintiff to produce the Wills. The defendants assumed that burden is on them and want to get the LTM signature on the relinquishment deed and compare the signature/LTM of the said Savantrevva. The burden to disprove the

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7594 WP No. 102629 of 2024

¶27

relinquishment deed primarily being on the plaintiff, the

¶28

learned Judge was justified in rejecting the application.

¶29

In the light of the discussion made supra, I am

¶30

not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. The writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

MBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Hanmantsingh Urf Hanumantappa Shankarappa Nandihalli Urf Nandilli v. Smt. Lalitabai Alias Yallavva W/O Laxmaaansingh Jamadar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanmantsingh Urf Hanumantappa Shankarappa Nandihalli Urf Nandilli v. Smt. Lalitabai Alias Yallavva W/O Laxmaaansingh Jamadar

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

Gururaj Narasimha Das Vs the State of Karnataka

Gurumurthy Basavraj Navalgundmath, Vs Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporaotion

Shri Erappa S/O Channabasappa Naregal Vs Smt Sudha W/O Erappa Naregal

Bhimasen Alias Bhimappa S/O Balappa Alias Balu Gurav Vs Smt. Shanta Alias Shantawwa W/O Sattyappa Gurav

Hanamant S/O Laxman Dharigoud Vs Irawwa W/O Rachappa Dharogoud

Smt. Basawwa W/O. Fakkirappa Heggeri, Vs Sri. Kalllappa S/O. Rayappa Gali Alias Madari