Disposed

Smt Y Venkatalakshmamma v. Mr Subramanya Reddy

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024WP/48059/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff in a partition suit challenged an order posting the case for arguments after DW.1 died before full cross-examination. The High Court declined to interfere, holding the evidence of DW.1 cannot be discarded but must be assessed by the trial court at final disposal, and requested expeditious disposal of the 2006 suit within six months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Y Venkatalakshmamma Vs Mr Subramanya Reddy — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49351 WP No. 48059 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 48059 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. Y. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF K.P.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.177, 5^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, (KENCHENAHALLI), MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 098

¶8

REP. BY HER SPA HOLDER

¶9

K.P. KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.177, 5^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR (KENCHENAHALLI) MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 098.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MR. SUBRAMANYA REDDY SON OF LATE M.YELLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

MRS. Y.MALA D/O. LATE M.YELLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶16

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.506, THIMMA REDDY COLONY, JEEVANABHEEMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 075

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49351 WP No. 48059 of 2019

¶18

MR. V.ANIL REDDY SON OF N.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.1696, 5^TH 'A' CROSS, BSK 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 050.

¶19

MRS. GOWRAMMA WIFE OF LATE M.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶20

MRS. V.LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF M.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶21

MRS. V.RADHAMMA WIFE OF RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1471, CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 106

¶23

M/S. LORD VENKATESHWARA LADIES EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST, NO.84/1, BEHIND ANR COMPLEX, CHANDAPURA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶24

REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶25

MANAGING TRUSTEE; PRO: SMT. KANTHAMMA WIFE OF DR. N.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, NO.1696, 5^TH A CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, BSK 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 050.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. M.D. BASAVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 7;

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49351 WP No. 48059 of 2019

¶29

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.1657/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, POSTING THE MATTER FOR ARGUMENTS IN O.S.NO.1657/2006 UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The plaintiff in O.S.No.1657/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) is before this Court challenging an order dated 30.08.2019 posting the case for arguments. He has also sought for a direction to the Trial Court to clarify regarding the status of the evidence of DW.1 already adduced, in view of his death before he was fully cross-examined.

¶35

(i) A suit in O.S.No.1657/2006 was filed for

¶36

partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in suit schedule properties.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:49351 WP No. 48059 of 2019

¶39

(ii) The suit was contested by the defendant No.3 who

¶40

denied the claim of the plaintiff for partition.

¶41

(iii) Based on these contentions, issues were framed

¶42

and the suit was set down for evidence. The plaintiff adduced evidence and the suit was set down for evidence of defendants. The father of defendant No.3 was the special power of attorney holder of defendant No.3. The father of defendant No.3 was examined as DW.1 and was cross-examined in part. At the request of the plaintiff, further cross-examination of DW.1 was deferred and the case was posted on 20.07.2019. On the said date, a memo was filed reporting the death of DW.1 and the case was posted for further cross-examination of defendants. On 30.08.2019, further evidence of DW.1 was treated as closed and case was posted for arguments.

¶43

Being aggrieved by the said order, posting the case for arguments and also seeking for a clarification as to the status of the evidence of DW.1, already adduced, this writ petition is filed.

¶44

Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that

¶45

DW.1 was not fully cross-examined and before he was cross-

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49351 WP No. 48059 of 2019

¶47

examined, he expired and therefore it was incumbent upon the trial Court to comment upon the evidence of DW.1 already adduced. He submitted that the Court could not have posted the case for arguments.

¶48

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶49

purchaser/defendant No.7 contends that since DW.1 was crossexamined in part, his evidence cannot be discarded, but the acceptability of his evidence can be determined by the Trial Court at the time of passing the final judgment. He submits that this is not a ground for the plaintiff to challenge the order dated 30.08.2019 or seek for a direction about the status of the evidence of DW.1.

¶50

I have considered the submission of learned counsel

¶51

for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for defendant No.7.

¶52

DW.1 was examined and cross-examined in part. At the request of plaintiff, further cross-examination of DW.1 was adjourned and by the adjourned date, DW.1 had expired. Therefore, the evidence of DW.1 cannot be discarded, but has to be assessed at the time of final disposal. Therefore, the plaintiff should not have challenged the order dated 30.08.2019

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:49351 WP No. 48059 of 2019

¶54

¶55

before this Court as it was for the Trial Court to decide as to what should be done to the evidence of DW.1.

¶56

In that view of the matter, there is no need to interfere with the order dated 30.08.2019. However, it is open for the Trial Court to decide as to what should be done to the evidence of DW.1. Since the suit is filed in the year 2006, the Trial Court is requested to dispose off the suit as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶57

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶58

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt Y Venkatalakshmamma v. Mr Subramanya Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Y Venkatalakshmamma v. Mr Subramanya Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Rudraiah Vs Sri. B. Somashekarappa

Malegowda Vs Malamma @ Chikkannamma by Lr Smt Malamma

Gokulam Shelters Private Limited Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Sri. Srinivas. M Vs Sri. Mahammed Akmal

Sri.K.G. Venkatesh Vs Sri. Anil Kumar Mehta M

Abdul Rahim Vs D Krishna