Quashed

Sri M S Balakrishna v. Smt N S Uma

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2024WP/20885/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A decree-holder sought to draw a final decree on stamp paper in a 1996 partition suit; the trial court rejected the Section 151 CPC application without notice. The High Court quashed the order and remitted the matter for reconsideration after issuing notice to the original suit parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.06.2024 in O.S.No.2/1996 quashed; matter remitted to trial court to issue notice to original suit parties and reconsider the Section 151 CPC application.

Sri M S Balakrishna Vs Smt N S Uma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34752 WP No. 20885 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 20885 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M.S.BALAKRISHNA, S/O LATE M.V.SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT SAPTHAGIRI, NO.157/A, 5^TH MAIN, K.G.E. LAYOUT, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 094.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HARISH N N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. N.S.UMA, Digitally signed D/O SRI. S.N.SRINIVASA SETTY, by JUANITA THEJESWINI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, Location: HIGH R/AT K.R. EXTENSION, COURT OF TUMAKURU – 572 101. KARNATAKA

¶13

PRESENTLY R/AT PRAKRUTI NILAYA, NO.35, VASAVI TEMPLE ROAD, VISHWESHVARAPURAM, (V.V.PURAM), BANGALORE – 560 004.

¶14

SMT. N.S.VISHALA (LAKSHMI), D/O SRI. S.N.SRINIVASA SETTY

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:34752 WP No. 20885 of 2024

¶17

AND W/O SRI.MURALIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SOUTH EXTENSION, KOLLEGALA – 571 440.

¶18

SRI. S.N.SRINIVASA SETTY, S/O S. NARAYANA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, R/AT K.R. EXTENSION, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE ENTIRE SET OF RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, IN OS NO.2/1996 (ANN-A) AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner's father, having purchased the property in question at the hands of respondent No.1 herein, has approached the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking permission to get the final decree engrossed on a stamp paper and the same being rejected, this

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:34752 WP No. 20885 of 2024

¶26

Court is of the considered opinion that the matter has to be considered and disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents.

¶27

The brief facts are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, being the daughters of respondent No.3 had filed a suit in O.S.No.2/1996 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, and a compromise petition was filed by the parties, and in terms of the compromise petition, the property in question, namely item No.7(e) fell to the share of respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner's father purchased the property from respondent No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 07.06.1999. However, thereafter, the petitioner's father executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner on 16.08.1999 and consequently, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property in question. However, the petitioner faced certain difficulties in obtaining a loan for putting up construction on the property in question, since it was pointed out that a decree was not finally drawn by the Court, although a compromise petition was filed by the parties. In this background, the application was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34752 WP No. 20885 of 2024

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumkur, should have at least issued notice to the parties to the original suit. On the appearance of the parties, the application could have been decided by the Court.

¶30

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed, the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 in O.S.No.2/1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumkur, to issue notice to the original parties to the suit, and after the appearance of the parties, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC shall be reconsidered.

¶31

Ordered accordingly.

¶32

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

¶34

Sri M S Balakrishna v. Smt N S Uma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M S Balakrishna v. Smt N S Uma

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. Alamelu Vs Sri. Rangadhamaiah

Mr. Denis Pinto Vs Mrs Leo Fernades

Sri. Pandith M Narasimha Acharaya Vs Shri. Bhadra Narasimha Devaru

Mohammed Sami Vs D Syed Nurul Hassan

Smt Sunitha Sharma Vs Smt Pushpa D Gangalani

Sri Krishnaiah Vs Sri M N Narayanaswamy