Dismissed

Hanamappa v. the Assitant Registrar of

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024WP/108935/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a preliminary hearing in a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenged notices issued to his brother concerning property recovery for a defaulted loan. The court observed that disputed questions of fact requiring detailed evidence examination cannot be investigated in summary writ proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed; the notices remain valid.

Hanamappa Vs the Assitant Registrar of — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12995 WP No. 108935 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 108935 OF 2016 (CS-DAS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HANAMAPPA S/O KALAKAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HUNAGUNDI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.S.PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE ASSITANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BAGALKOT AND RECOVERY OFFICER OF SRI VEER PULIKESHI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BADAMI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶14

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE GENERAL MANAGER, SRI VEER PULIKESHI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BADAMI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶16

SHRI. VEERAPPA S/O KALAKAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: RON, SHIVANANDA NAGARA, RON, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA.R.PATIL., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHIVARAJ.S.BALLOLI., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12995 WP No. 108935 of 2016

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri.Sabeel Ahmed., counsel on behalf of Sri.A.S.Patil., for the petitioner, Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil., HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.Shivaraj S.Balloli., counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶24

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the notices dated 28.09.2016 issued by the first respondent in Forms No.8 and 9 vide Annexures-E and F.

¶25

Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with the utmost care.

¶26

Suffice it to note that the petitioner’s brother - the third respondent had availed the loan from the Bank and he did not clear the loan. The Bank raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and an award was passed against the third respondent. Despite the award, there was no clearance of the loan and hence a notice was issued to the third

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12995 WP No. 108935 of 2016

¶29

respondent in Forms No.8 and 9 to recover the award amount by way of public auction.

¶30

The petitioner contends that his brother has played fraud on him, obtained his signatures on certain documents, and mortgaged the house property bearing No.168 and landed property bearing Sy.No.259/2 measuring 01 Acre 05 Guntas that belonged to him. He also contends that his brother forged his signature and created one more document styled as a Consent Letter by mentioning that he has no objection to the continuation of encumbrance for the above-mentioned properties.

¶31

Sri.Sabeel Ahmed., counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the petitioner is living in the house property bearing No.168 and his brother has played fraud upon him. Thus, the petitioner has become the victim of the fraud. Hence, a submission is made to the Court to pass a suitable order.

¶32

The petitioner specifically contends about the alleged fraud and is insisting the Writ Court to intervene in the matter that relates to a disputed question of fact. In general, a

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12995 WP No. 108935 of 2016

¶34

disputed question of fact is not investigated in a proceeding under Article 226. The right claimed by the petitioner is not capable of being established in the summary proceedings under Article 226 because it requires a detailed examination of the evidence as may be had in a suit. Furthermore, the notices are issued to the third respondent. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶36

Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged and interlocutory applications pending if any are disposed of.

¶37

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶38

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Hanamappa v. the Assitant Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanamappa v. the Assitant Registrar of

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.Neelavva Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Anant Balawant Kulahalli, Vs the State of Karnataka

Basappa S/O Irappa Jakati Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shekhappa Kheerappa Lamani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajeev Vasudevrao Deshapande Vs Sri Channabasappa S/O Irappa Maddennavar

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangh Niyamita Vs the State of Karnataka