Maliyappa S/O Venkappa Talawar, Vs Manappa S/O Venkappa Talawar

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6348 WP No. 101960 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 101960 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MALIYAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HIRESHELLIKERI-587 204, TQ. AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S.KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

MANAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA TALAWAR AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HIRESHELLIKERI - 587 204, TQ. AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶10

DUNDAVVA W/O. MANAPPA TALAWAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. HIRESHELLIKERI - 587 204, TQ. AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶11

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.17 10:25:57 +0530

¶12

HANAMANTH S/O. SIDDAPPA MURNAL AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BANNIDINNI, POST. MURNAL - 587 102, TQ. AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶13

YAMANPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA MURNAL AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BANNIDINNI, POST. MURNAL-587 102, TQ. AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶14

DUNDAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA MURNAL AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BANNIDINNI, POST. MURNAL-587 102, TQ. AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶15

TULASAVVA W/O. MAHANTESH TALAWAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. BANNIDINNI, POST. MURNAL-587 102, TQ. AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6348 WP No. 101960 of 2022

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA NO. 9 DATED 25.03.2022 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 34/2019 ON THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BAGALKOTE (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The captioned petition is filed by defendant No.1 requesting the court to frame an additional issue. The said application is rejected by the learned Judge having taken cognizance of the fact that the plaintiff has admitted that though the parties belong to Scheduled Tribe, they follow the customs and rituals as followed by Hindu people. Therefore, the learned Judge was of the view that no issue would arise for consideration. Accordingly, application filed in I.A.No.9 filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC to recast issue No.1 is rejected by the learned Judge. The said order is under challenge.

¶23

The application filed by defendant No.1 in

¶24

I.A.No.9 to frame additional issue reads as under:

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6348 WP No. 101960 of 2022

¶26

“Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff and defendants are belonging to Schedule Tribes adopted the customs and rituals of the original Hindu people hence they are Hindus by religion?”

¶27

The short point that needs consideration is, as to whether this additional issue would arise for consideration in the light of the pleading at paragraph 3A of the plaint, which would clinch the entire controversy between the parties. Paragraph 3A reads as under:

¶28

“3A. That the plaintiffs and defendants are belonged to the scheduled tribes as defined under our Indian Constitution, though they belonged to such schedule tribes they are not performing any customs or rituals of original people belonged to scheduled tribes. But they are all since the times of their fore fathers have adopted the customs, rituals which the original Hindu people are performing. The plaintiffs and defendants in the instant case are all following the festivals like Dipawali, Dasara and all other festivals which are performed by Hindu people. And also they are all Hinduised by performing all other ceremonies on account of birth and death of their people in their day today activities and thereby they have been Hinduised. Hence the principles and provisions of Hindu succession Act and other

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6348 WP No. 101960 of 2022

¶30

Provisions Law are made applicable to the parties to the suit also.”

¶31

On a careful reading of paragraph 3A of the plaint, it becomes evident that the plaintiffs have made a categorical and unequivocal admission regarding their adoption of Hindu customs and rituals, notwithstanding their status as members of a Scheduled Tribe. The plaintiffs have expressly pleaded that, although they are members of a Scheduled Tribe as defined under the Constitution of India, they and their forefathers have long since abandoned the traditional customs and rituals of their tribal origins and have, instead, adopted the customs, festivals, and ceremonies ordinarily observed and performed by Hindus. They have further asserted that they have been fully "Hinduised" and, as such, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and other applicable laws relating to Hindus govern the parties to the suit.

¶32

In this context, the application filed by Defendant No.1 in I.A. No. 9 seeking framing of an

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6348 WP No. 101960 of 2022

¶34

additional issue does not merit consideration. The framing

¶35

of issues under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is governed by the necessity to determine questions of fact or law which are in dispute between the parties. However, where a fact has been admitted unequivocally in the pleadings, it ceases to be a matter in controversy and no issue can be framed on such an admitted fact. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have consistently held that no issue arises in respect of an admitted fact, as the same does not require trial or adjudication.

¶36

In the present case, the pleading at paragraph 3A amounts to an admission within the meaning of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that facts admitted need not be proved. Since the plaintiffs themselves have taken a clear stand that they are governed by Hindu customs and the Hindu Succession Act, the question of framing an additional issue to determine the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act does not arise.

¶37

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6348 WP No. 101960 of 2022

¶38

Therefore, impugned order on I.A. No.9 is legally tenable and does not suffer from any infirmity. On the contrary, it is the present writ petition that is misconceived and devoid of merits, as it seeks to raise an issue that stands concluded by the plaintiffs' own admissions. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶41

MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Maliyappa S/O Venkappa Talawar, v. Manappa S/O Venkappa Talawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maliyappa S/O Venkappa Talawar, v. Manappa S/O Venkappa Talawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Vs Nil

Shivaji S/O Megu Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Vamanarao S/O Siddanagouda Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Smt. Venulabai W/O Sitaram Kadam Vs Srhi Ashok S/O Manohar Bhosale

Sri Shrishail Alias Shrishailgouda S/O Basangouda Ronad Vs Sri Nagappa Alias Nagaraj S/O Shankarappa Suryavamshi

Shri. Yallappa S/O Suresh Hadkar Alias Karimudakannavar Vs Shri. Shivaji S/O Suresh Hadkal Alias Karimudakannavar