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

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6353 WP No. 102664 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 102664 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. YALLAPPA S/O. SURESH HADKAR @ KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEGINAHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶8

SHRI. MANJUNATH S/O. SURESH HADKAR @ KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEGINAHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶9

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.17 10:26:19 +0530

¶10

SHRI. SANJU S/O. SURESH HADKAR @ KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEGINAHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶11

SMT. SAVITA @ PARVATI W/O. FAKKIR AMBOJI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. BOGUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. D.M.MALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SHRI. SHIVAJI S/O. SURESH HADKAL @ KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6353 WP No. 102664 of 2022

¶17

R/O. NEGINAHAL, NOW AT CHIDAMBARANAGAR, SOUNDATTI, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶18

SHRI. NAGARAJ S/O. SURESH HADKAR @ KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NEGINAHAL, NOW AT CHIDAMBARANAGAR, SOUNDATTI, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶19

SHRI. SURESH S/O. YALLAPPA HADKAR @ KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEGINAHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶20

SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA HADKAR @ KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEGINAHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶21

SHRI. VITTAL S/O. YALLAPPA HADKAR @ KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,

¶22

5(A). SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. VITTAL HADKAR @ KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MARUTIGALLI, KHASBHAG, POST SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶23

5(B). SHRI. BABU S/O. VITTAL HADKAR @ KARIBUKADANNAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: WEAVER, R/O. MARUTIGALLI KHASBHAG, POST SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6353 WP No. 102664 of 2022

¶25

5(C). SMT. MEENAXI W/O. PARASHURAM JUNJARI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. WADDARA CHAWL MARUTIGALLI KHASBHAG, POST SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶26

5(D). SHRI. RAJU S/O. VITTAL HADKAR @ KARIMUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: WEAVER, R/O. MARUTIGALLI, KHASBHAG, POST. SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590028.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. S.B.DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R5(A TO D); NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED; R4 -DEAD)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.05.2022 PASSED BY THE PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT BAILGONGAL, ON I A NO.VIII FILED U/O I RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY THE APPLICANTS/PETITIONERS HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN O S NO.207/2013, AND INTER ALIA ALLOW I A NO.VIII FILED U/O I RULE 10(2) R/W. SEC 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY THE APPLICANTS/PETITIONERS HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6353 WP No. 102664 of 2022

¶32

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This petition is filed by the proposed impleading applicant assailing the order passed by the learned Judge on I.A.No.8 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC. The said application is rejected. The said order is challenged by the impleading applicant.

¶35

The principal issue that requires determination in the present matter is whether the applicants, who are seeking to be impleaded as parties to the partition suit, are entitled to be brought on record solely on the ground that they claim to be the children of defendant No.1, allegedly born through a void marriage. It is their contention that, notwithstanding the void nature of the marriage between defendant No.1 and one Premavva, they are the biological offspring of defendant No.1 and, as such, possess the right to be impleaded in the suit for

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6353 WP No. 102664 of 2022

¶37

partition filed by the plaintiffs. This claim, however, must be tested in the light of the prevailing legal position.

¶38

The legal position on this aspect is no longer res integra, having been conclusively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the authoritative pronouncement rendered in REVANASIDDAPPA AND ANOTHER V. MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERS , reported in (2023) 10 SCC 1 . In the said judgment, the Apex Court has reiterated and clarified the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages. While it is true that defendant No.1, in paragraph 9 of his written statement, acknowledges the applicants as his children, there is no dispute to the fact that these applicants were born from a marriage that is legally declared void under law, specifically, the void marriage between defendant No.1 and Premavva.

¶39

In light of the decision in

¶40

REVANASIDDAPPA (SUPRA) , such children, though born out

¶41

of a void marriage, are deemed legitimate by a legal fiction for certain purposes. However, the conferment of

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6353 WP No. 102664 of 2022

¶43

legitimacy does not automatically entitle them to claim an independent share in the joint family property during the lifetime of their parent, in this case, defendant No.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that children born from such void marriages are entitled to inherit only from the share of the parent in the property, and not beyond. Consequently, they are not considered necessary parties to a partition suit filed during the lifetime of the father, unless and until his share is determined.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the order impugned in the present writ petition does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. The applicants, having no independent right in the property at this stage, cannot insist upon being impleaded as necessary parties to the partition proceedings. Their rights, if any, would only accrue upon the determination of defendant No.1’s share, and even then, only to the extent of his interest in the property. As such, the challenge to

¶45