Dismissed

Smt. Annusuya W/O Rama Maruche v. Parwati W/O Basawant Maruche

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/108536/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the Trial Court's order rejecting amendment applications in final decree proceedings of a partition suit. The Court held the petitioners failed to demonstrate why properties were not included earlier and lacked documents proving they were family properties.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for being devoid of merit; impugned order of 11.07.2017 stands upheld.

Smt. Annusuya W/O Rama Maruche Vs Parwati W/O Basawant Maruche — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16463 WP No. 108536 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.108536 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. ANNUSUYA W/O. RAMA MARUCHE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLEHOL VILLAGE, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶10

MAKARAND S/O. RAMA MARUCHE, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLEHOL VILLAGE, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶11

SHRI KALAMESHWAR S/O. RAMA MARUCHE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLEHOL VILLAGE, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI ROSHAN CHABBI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

PARWATI W/O. BASAWANT MARUCHE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: H/W, R/O: KALLEHOL, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶17

SMT. LEELA W/O. SHIVAJI MARUCHE, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: 4^TH CROSS, AZAMNAGAR, KANGRALI ROAD, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶18

AMBIKA D/O. SHIVAJI MARUCHE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: H/W,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16463 WP No. 108536 of 2017

¶21

R/O: 4^TH CROSS, AZAMNAGAR KANGRALI ROAD,

¶22

DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶23

ARUN W/O. SHIVAJI MARUCHE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: 4^TH CROSS, AZAMNAGAR KANGRALI ROAD, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶24

ANUJA D/O. SHIVAJI MARUCHE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: 4^TH CROSS, AZAMNAGAR KANGRALI ROAD, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶25

SHRI APPAJI S/O. BASAWANT MARUCHE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLEHOL, TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶26

SHRI DONGRE S/O. BASAWANT MARUCHE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLEHOL, TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶27

SHRI BHARMANNA S/O BASAWANT MARUCHE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLEHOL, TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶28

LAXMI S/O. WAMAN SAMBREKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLEHOL, TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶29

MANOHAR S/O. TAMMANNA GINDE, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NETAJI GALLI, YALLUR, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶30

SHRI UMESH S/O. MANOHAR GINDE, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NETAJI GALLI, YALLUR, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16463 WP No. 108536 of 2017

¶32

VIJAYA D/O MANOHAR GINDE AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: NETAJI GALLI, YALLUR, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶33

VIDYA D/O. MANOHAR GINDE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: NETAJI GALLI, YALLUR, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶34

CHANGU S/O MANOHAR GINDE, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O: NETAJI GALLI, YALLUR, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶35

KAMALA S/O. LAXMAN MANDOLKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: H/W, R/O: MENSE GALLI, BELAGAVI, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶36

GANGU W/O. YALLAPPA MARUCHE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VITTAL GALLI, KALLEHOL, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶37

SHRI GANAPATI S/O. YALLAPPA MARUCHE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VITTAL GALLI, KALLEHOL, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶38

SHRI BHAVAKU S/O. YALLAPPA MARUCHE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VITTAL GALLI, KALLEHOL, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶39

SHRI YALLU S/O. NARAYAN PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANGARGA, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶40

LAXMI W/O. YALLAPPA MARUCHE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: H/W, R/O: KALLEHOL, TAL: BELAGAVI,

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16463 WP No. 108536 of 2017

¶42

DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶43

SHRI SOMMANNA S/O. LAXMAN MARUCHE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLEHOL, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶44

SMT. UMABAI W/O. KALLAPPA KAGUTKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: H/W, R/O: SONOLLI, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶45

YASHODA MARUTI KAKATIKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: H/W, R/O: SUNDI, TAL: CHANDGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR.

¶46

SMT. AAVALE MAHADEV MENSE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: H/W, R/O: UCHAGAON, TAL: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶47

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8; R18, R18 AND R21; NOTICE ISSUED TO R2, R4, R5, R10 TO R14, R19, R20, R22 TO R24 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 29.08.2024 PETITION AGAINST R3, R9 AND R15 ARE DISMISSED; R1 AND R16 ARE ABATED)

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 & 8 IN FDP NO.22/2008 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶49

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶50

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16463 WP No. 108536 of 2017

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶54

The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

¶55

“i) Issue Writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 11.07.2017 passed on I.A.No.6 & 8 in FDP No.22/2008 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi vide Annexure-F to meet the ends of justice and equity.

¶56

ii) Issue any other writ or direction as deemed fit by this Hon’ble court.”

¶57

The relevant facts leading to the present writ

¶58

petition are that the petitioners instituted

¶59

O.S.No.111/1995 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge, Sr.Divn. Belgaum¹ by one Rama Laxman Maruche who died during pendency of the suit and the petitioners have come on record as his legal heirs. The said suit was one for partition and separate possession.

¶60

The respondent herein was arrayed as

¶61

defendant in the said suit. The said suit was decreed vide the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2008 where under

¶62

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’

¶63

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16463 WP No. 108536 of 2017

¶64

the plaintiffs together were held as entitled for 2/15^th share in the suit properties.

¶65

The petitioners instituted FDP No.22/2008 for drawing up of final decree in terms of the preliminary decree passed in the suit. In the said final decree proceedings, the petitioners filed I.A.No.6 under Order 6 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure² for amendment to include certain properties. The petitioners also filed I.A.No.8 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the application I.A.No.6. The said applications were opposed by the respondents. The Trial Court vide its order dated 11.07.2017 dismissed the said applications with cost. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.

¶66

Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶67

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’

¶68

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16463 WP No. 108536 of 2017

¶69

It is the vehement contention of the learned

¶70

counsel for the petitioners that by oversight certain properties were not included in the suit and the said properties were required to included in the final decree proceedings. He further contends that the Trial Court has erred as rejecting the applications, which order is liable to interfered with by this Court.

¶71

Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondents justifying the order passed by the Trial Court submits that the applications filed by the petitioners has been adequately appreciated by the Trial Court and the Trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioners have not produced any documents to demonstrate that the said properties are family properties and has rightly rejected the applications filed by the petitioners, which order ought not to be interfered by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16463 WP No. 108536 of 2017

¶74

The submissions of both the learned counsel

¶75

have been considered and the material on record have

¶76

been perused.

¶77

It is forthcoming that the Trial Court while considering the I.A.Nos.6 and 8 has held as follows:

¶78

“15. In the accompanying affidavit to I.A.No.6, the Plaintiff No. 1A has stated that, through oversight the proposed properties have not been Included in the suit as suit properties, but no explanation was given as to why the plaintiffs have not Incorporated the said properties during the pendency of O.S.No. 111/1995 nor during the initial stage of the present final decree proceeding. The acts & deeds of the plaintiffs clearly establish that they are not diligent in prosecuting their case. however they are intended to drag on the case knowing fully well that the suit was for the year 1995. It came to be disposed off in the year 2008 and the final decree proceeding is filed in the year 2008. Therefore, such type of approach of the parties has to be restricted by imposing heavy costs. Moreover, the plaintiffs though sought the proposed properties to be included in the present final decree proceeding as suit properties but not produced any single document to show that they are the Joint family properties. I have already pointed out that the present final decree proceeding is initiated based on the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No. 111/1995. No reasons are forth coming to allow I.A.No.6.”

¶79

(emphasis supplied)

¶80

It is further relevant to note that along with the

¶81

affidavit accompanying I.A.No.6, the petitioners have not stated as to the reasons for including the properties

¶82

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16463 WP No. 108536 of 2017

¶83

belatedly. It is merely stated that by oversight the deponent could not instruct his counsel regarding the said properties to include them during pendency of the suit.

¶84

It is relevant to note that the respondents have filed detailed objections placing on record that the properties have been acquired by them. The Trial Court has noticed the objections filed by the respondents. Further the Trial Court has also noticed that the petitioners have not produced any document to demonstrate that the properties sought to be included vide I.A.No.6 were joint family properties. It is further relevant to note that apart from merely stating that oversight properties have not been included, the petitioners have not setout as to the reason for the delay in seeking to include the said properties.

¶85

Although it is an undisputed proposition of law that the properties could be included even in the final decree proceedings, it is incumbent on the petitioners to setout the reasons as to why the said properties could not

¶86

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16463 WP No. 108536 of 2017

¶87

be earlier included as also to place adequate material on record to demonstrate that they are the family properties. The petitioners have been miserably failed in doing so. The Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners.

¶88

The petitioners have failed in demonstrating that the order passed by the Trial Court is in any manner erroneous or contrary to any specific material on record.

¶89

In view of the aforementioned, the above writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶90

SD/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶91

SSP CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Smt. Annusuya W/O Rama Maruche v. Parwati W/O Basawant Maruche

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Annusuya W/O Rama Maruche v. Parwati W/O Basawant Maruche

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 Sujatha Vs Shri Bhramaramba Pattina Souhardha

The Arya Vysya Vividoddesha Sahakara Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Nagana Gouda S/O Doddana Gouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Devendrappa S/O Ningappa Bommanalli Vs Ashok S/O Tippanna Bommanalli

Shri.Sachin S/O Vasudev Hanji Vs Standard Engineering

Shri.Krishna Laxman Hosamani Vs Smt.Shubhangi Diggambar Kowadkar