Partly allowed¶117

Sri. Kanthamma v. Sri. C. Vishwanath

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2025WP/11123/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Clubbing of suits; simultaneous disposal; common evidence; analogously trying suits; Section 24 CPC transfer of suits; Article 227 writ (GM-CPC); partition suit O.S.No.475/2008; suit on sale deed dated 21.11.1983; impersonation; independent cause of action; multiplicity of proceedings; Devanahalli; Principal District Judge Bengaluru Rural; M.G.S. Kamal; 2025; Karnataka High Court.

What did the court decide?

W.P.No.11123/2024 partly allowed: order dated 02.01.2023 in Misc.P.No.136/2022 set aside only to the extent directing simultaneous disposal of O.S.Nos.475/2008, 781/2020 and 511/2022 (transfer/withdrawal before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli left undisturbed). W.P.No.21233/2023 rejected. Trial Court directed to hear arguments of both sides and dispose of O.S.No.475/2008 within three months from receipt of certified copy.

Sri. Kanthamma Vs Sri. C. Vishwanath — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶117

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 02.01.2023 in Misc. Petition No.136/2022 directing withdrawal/transfer of O.S.Nos.781/2020 and 511/2022 to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli and their simultaneous disposal along with O.S.No.475/2008 is sustainable. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

The cause of action in O.S.No.781/2020 (challenge by Smt. Padma to the sale deed dated 21.11.1983) must be tested independently on her own evidence, including her claim that the deed was procured by defendant No.1 by impersonation.

¶109

Ratio / Principle

The outcome of the partition suit O.S.No.475/2008 will not bind Smt. Padma, the plaintiff in O.S.No.781/2020.

¶109

Key takeaways

The aspects involved in O.S.No.781/2020 are not common with those in O.S.No.475/2008, so the suits do not require clubbing and analogous adjudication.ratio¶109
The heirs of defendant No.1 Sri. Raghavappa (including Smt. Geethashree in O.S.No.511/2022) would be entitled to shares in accordance with law subject to determination of shares in O.S.No.475/2008; hence O.S.No.511/2022 need not be clubbed with the partition suit.ratio¶113
The respondents' submission that failure to club the suits and record common evidence would lead to an anomalous situation of divergent decisions cannot be countenanced.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M.G.S. Kamal J., 07.08.2025) — Writ petitions under Article 227 (GM-CPC) concerning clubbing/simultaneous disposal of three suits before the Devanahalli courts. O.S.No.475/2008 (Smt. Kanthamma) — partition of 14 joint family items; evidence closed, at defendants' arguments stage, pending over 17 years. On a Section 24 CPC application by defendant Nos.2 and 3 (Misc.P.No.136/2022), the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural directed O.S.No.781/2020 (Smt. Padma, daughter of B. Narayan Rao, challenging sale deed dated 21.11.1983 in favour of defendant No.1 Raghavappa, alleging impersonation) and O.S.No.511/2022 (Smt. Geethashree, daughter of defendant No.1, claiming a share out of her father's share) to be withdrawn, placed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli and disposed of simultaneously with O.S.No.475/2008; the defendants' later application (I.A.No.1/2023, order dated 21.07.2023) for recording common evidence was rejected. HELD: (i) Padma's suit rests on an independent cause of action — the impersonation plea must be tested on her own evidence and the partition decree will not bind her; (ii) Raghavappa's heirs take shares in accordance with law subject to determination of shares in the partition suit; (iii) the apprehension of divergent decisions cannot countenance clubbing, and simultaneous disposal of the three suits is unnecessary. W.P.No.11123/2024 partly allowed — the simultaneous-disposal direction set aside (transfer otherwise undisturbed); W.P.No.21233/2023 rejected; trial Court directed to dispose of O.S.No.475/2008 within three months.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 11123 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 21233 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶10

IN WP No. 11123/2024

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. KANTHAMMA W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, NO.236 NEAR ESI, 53^RD 'B' CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. K V NARASIMHAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. C. VISHWANATH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶18

1(a) SMT. MANJULA VISHWANATH W/O LATE C. VISHWANTH, MAJOR

¶19

1(b) SRI. V. HARSHA S/O LATE C. VISHWANATH, MAJOR

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

1(c) SRI. V. ANAND S/O LATE C. VISHWANATH, MAJOR

¶23

SRI C. SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶24

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.103 RANGAPPA STREET, CHIKKAMAVALLI,

¶25

BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶26

SMT. PADMA B N W/O LATE SRI B BARAYAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, R/AT NO FLAT NO.3 RATNAVILAS APTS, RATNAVILAS ROAD, BANGALORE 560 004.

¶27

SMT. GEETHASHRI R AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D/O C RAGHAVAPPA, R/AT KUMBALAHALLI VILLAGE, SUBLIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 144.

¶28

SRI C RAGHAVAPPA S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT HUNASURU VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SMT SHANTHAMMA

¶32

W/O J C CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT JADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK.

¶33

SMT YASHODHAMMA W/O PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.638, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶34

K S VIJAYAKUMAR. S/O SHANKARAMURTHY, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE (B G DODDI), MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.

¶35

SMT SAVITHRAMMA W/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT SEEGENE AGRAHARA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶36

SRI R KRISHNAPRASAD S/O C RAGHAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT HUNASURU VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI,

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

HC-KAR

YELAHANKA TALUK

BANGALORE- 562 149.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAMA MOHAN M.,ADVOCATEFOR R1 & R2, R6, R7 AND R9;

¶43

SRI. A ANAND ADVOCATE FOR R4(VK NOT FILED) SMT. L. MADHUMITHA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SIDDARTH B. MUCCHANDI., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. SANTHOSH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN., ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R10; R8 - IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶44

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02/01/2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN MISC. 136/2022 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶45

IN WP NO. 21233/2023

¶46

BETWEEN:

¶47

SRI C VISHWANATHA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶48

1(a) SMT. MANJULA VISHWANATHA W/O LATE C. VISHWANATH, MAJOR

¶49

1(b) SRI. V. HARSHA

¶50

S/O LATE C. VISHWANATH, MAJOR

¶51

1(c) SRI. V. ANAND S/O LATE VISHWANATH, MAJOR

¶52

ALL ARE R/AT NO.19/1, RANGAPPA STREET

¶53

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

HC-KAR

CHIKKAMAVALLI

BENGALURU-560 004.

SRI C SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.103, RANGAPPA STREET CHIKKAMAVALLI

¶58

BENGALURU-560 004.

¶59

SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O J C CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT JODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK.

¶60

SMT YASHODHAMMA W/O PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.638, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶61

SMT SAVITHRAMMA W/O PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT SEEGENA AGRAHARA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶62

THE PETITITIONERS 3 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NAMELY C SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE G N CHANDRASHEKARIAH

¶63

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

NO.103 RANGAPPA STREET CHIKKAMAVALLI BENGALURU-560 004.

¶66

...PETITIONERS

¶67

(BY SRI. RAMA MOHAN M.,ADVOCATE)

¶68

AND:

¶69

SMT KANTHAMMA

¶70

W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.235 NEAR ESI 53^RD B CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA BENGALURU-560 010.

¶71

SRI C RAGHAVAPPA

¶72

S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT HUNASURU VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-571105.

¶73

SMT. PADMA B.N. W/O LATE B. NARAYAN RAO AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.3, RATANAVILAS APTS., RATNAVILAS RIAD, BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶74

SMT. GEETHASHRI R., D/O C. GAGHAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT KUMBALAHALLI VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶75

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

K.S. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SHANKARAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE (B.G. DODDI) MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶78

SRI.R. KRISHNAPRASAD S/O C. RAGHAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT HUNASURU VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YALAHANKA TALUK.

¶79

...RESPONDENTS

¶80

(BY SRI. K.N. NITISH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 03.12.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶81

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED AGAINST I.A. NO. 1/2023 PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI IN DATE 21.7.2023 IN OS 475/2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶82

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶83

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶84

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

ORAL ORDER

¶87

Writ petition in W.P.No.11123/2024 is by Smt.Kanthamma / plaintiff in O.S.No.475/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2023, passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.136/2022, on the file of Principal District Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). In and by which the trial Court, while allowing the said petition, has directed suit in O.S.No.781/2020 pending on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli and suit in O.S.No.511/2022 pending on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli to be withdrawn and place before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli where the suit in O.S.No.475/2008 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein is pending and further directed for simultaneous disposal of the said suits in accordance with law.

¶88

Writ petition in W.P.No.21233/2022 is filed by respondents/defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.475/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2023 passed in said O.S.No.475/2008 passed in I.A.No.1/2023 rejecting the request for recording common evidence in the aforesaid two suits.

¶89

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Sri. K. V. Nitish, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11123/2024, taking this Court through the records vehemently submits that suit in O.S.No.475/2008 filed by the petitioner herein is one for partition and separate possession of 14 items of the joint family properties belonging to the family of the plaintiff. He further submits that evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendants in the said suit has been recorded and completed as far back as in the year 2022 and the matter was at the stage of final argument of the defendants.

¶92

He submits that the suit in O.S.No.781/2020 has been filed by one Smt. Padma, daughter of Sri.B. Narayan Rao, who is the paternal uncle of the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.475/2008, alleging that the deed of sale dated 21.11.1983 executed by her father Sri.B. Narayan Rao, in favour of Sri.Raghavappa, the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.475/2008 as illegal and not binding on her. He submits that the said suit has been filed after 12 years of filing of the suit in O.S.No.475/2008 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and after 37 years of the execution of the deed of sale disputed thereunder. Thus he submits that the cause of action for both the suits and the relief claimed are completely different and distinct.

¶93

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

As regards, suit in O.S.No.511/2022, he submits that the said suit is filed by one Smt. Geethashree daughter of Sri. Raghavappa, who is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.475/2008 seeking her 1/3^rd share in the share that will be allotted to her father Sri.Raghavappa. He submits the said suit is superfluous inasmuch as the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.475/2008, being one for partition, would also determine the share of said Sri. Raghavappa and in such eventuality she would be entitled for her share in accordance with law. He submits that the said suit is also filed after 14 years of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

¶96

He submits that the aforesaid three suits being premised on different causes of action, cannot be clubbed and disposed of analogously, more particularly when the evidence in O.S.No.475/2008 has already been completed, there is no requirement of re-opening the case, defeating the very purpose and wasting precious judicial time. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶97

Sri. Ram Mohan, learned counsel appearing in W.P.No.21233/2023 along with Ms. Madhumitha, learned counsel for the respondents, apart from justifying the order passed in Misc.P.No.136/2022, subject matter of W.P.No.11123/2024 also

¶98

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

questioned the order dated 21.07.2023, rejecting the application for common disposal. He submits that properties in item Nos.3 and 6 of suit in O.S.No.475/2008, are the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.781/2020 and item Nos.12 and 13 are the subject matter of suit in O.S.No.511/2022. He submits since the subject matter of the suits are being one and the same and the litigation brewing between the same members of the family, it would lead to analogous situation, should different judgment be passed in these three suits, creating an avoidable situation of multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, he submits the petition filed by the Smt. Kanthamma in W.P.No.11123/2024 be dismissed and the petition filed by the defendants W.P.Nos.21233/2023 be allowed.

¶101

Heard and perused the records.

¶102

It appears, Sri. Chandrashekaraiah, who is father of defendant Nos.3 and 4/respondents herein had 3 brothers namely (1). Sri. Mallikarjunaiah, (2). Sri.Narayan Rao and (3). Sri. Shankarnarayan Rao. Apparently, there has been a partition amongst the said brothers. The suit in O.S.No.475/2008 is filed by Smt. Kanthamma, representing the branch of Sri.Chandrashekaraiah, (consisting of eight children namely, (1). Smt.Kanthamma-Plaintiff, (2). Sri. Raghavappa -defendant No.1,

¶103

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

(3). Sri.Vishwanath - defendant No.2, (4). Sri.Somashekara - defendant No.3, (5). Smt.Shanthammma - defendant No.4 (6). Yashodhama/defendant No.5, (7). Smt. Girijamma/defendant No.6 and (8). Smt.Savithramma /defendant No.7).

¶106

Admittedly, parties have led and closed their respective sides of evidence. Arguments on behalf of the plaintiff as the main having been completed and the matter set down for the arguments of defendants. That by the Order dated 02.09.2022, reserving liberty to the defendants to file the written arguments, the matter was posted for judgment. It is at this juncture, that an application under Section 24 of the CPC in Misc. Petition No.137/2022 came to be filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 seeking withdrawal and transfer of suits in O.S.Nos.781/2020 and 511/2022 to be placed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli to be tried analogously, which application came to be allowed by the impugned order. Perusal of the plaint averments and the order sheet produced by the parties, would indicate that the suits in O.S.No.781/2020 is at the stage of framing of issues, while suit in O.S.No. 511/2022 is at the stage of service of notices to the parties.

¶107

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

The only apprehension being expressed and the ground being urged by the respondents is that the Courts delivering divergent decisions in the matter. Needless to say, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, suit in O.S.No.781/2020 is filed by Smt. Padma, daughter of Sri. B. Narayan Rao, challenging the deed of sale dated 21.11.1983, which was purportedly executed by her father Sri. B. Narayan Rao, in favour of defendant No.1/Sri.Raghavappa. Outcome of the suit in O.S.No.475/2008, which is one for partition will not bind her. The cause of action for the said suit being urged will have to be tested independently upon she leading evidence in justification of her claim of the said deed of sale having been procured by defendant No.1 by impersonation. The said aspect of the matter cannot be found to be common with the one involved in the suit in O.S.No.475/2008, requiring clubbing and adjudicating of the matters analogously.

¶110

As regards, the suit in O.S.No.511/2022, the said suit is filed by one Smt. Geethashree, daughter of Raghavappa, the defendant No.1 claiming her 1/3^rd share out of the share allocable to said Sri. Raghavappa. Needless to state that the heirs of Sri.

¶111

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

Raghavappa would be entitled for share in accordance with law subject to determination of shares in O.S.No.475/2008.

¶114

In that view of the matter, the submission being made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents, that if the suits are not clubbed and common evidence is not recorded, the same would lead to anomalous situation cannot be countenanced.

¶115

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he has no objection in the three suits having been already withdrawn and placed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli for disposal. But he has serious objections for the same being tried together.

¶116

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, there is considerable force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11123/2024. There is neither any nor any necessity of simultaneous disposal of the aforesaid three suits.

¶117

In that view of the matter, Writ Petition in W.P.No.11123/2024 is partly allowed . The order impugned passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.136/2022, dated 21.07.2023 to the extent directing simultaneous disposal of the said suits is set aside.

¶118

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:30779 WP No. 11123 of 2024 C/W WP No. 21233 of 2023

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

Consequently, W.P.No.21233/2023 is rejected.

¶121

Since, O.S.No.475/2028 is stated to be posted for arguments of defendants and the matter is pending consideration for over 17 years and is at the arguments stage for the 3 years, the trial Court shall provide opportunity to plaintiff as well as defendants to address their arguments and dispose of the matter in accordance with law expeditiously within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/ -

(M.G.S. KAMAL)

JUDGE

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order in Misc. Petition No.136/2022 allowing the defendants' application under Section 24 CPC: suits in O.S.No.781/2020 (I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli) and O.S.No.511/2022 (III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli) withdrawn and placed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli (where O.S.No.475/2008 is pending), with a further direction for simultaneous disposal of the three suits. Challenged in W.P.No.11123/2024; set aside only to the extent of the simultaneous-disposal direction.¶87
Principal District Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru · 02.01.2023
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.475/2008 instituted by Smt. Kanthamma representing the branch of Sri. Chandrashekaraiah; one for partition and separate possession of 14 items of joint family properties.¶102
Prior proceeding
Evidence in O.S.No.475/2008 closed; plaintiff's arguments completed; matter set down for defendants' arguments and posted for judgment by order dated 02.09.2022.¶106
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.781/2020 filed by Smt. Padma, daughter of Sri. B. Narayan Rao (paternal uncle of the plaintiff in O.S.No.475/2008).¶92
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.781/2020 challenges the deed of sale dated 21.11.1983 executed by B. Narayan Rao in favour of Sri. Raghavappa (defendant No.1 in O.S.No.475/2008) as illegal and not binding, alleging procurement by impersonation.¶92
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.511/2022 filed by Smt. Geethashree, daughter of defendant No.1 Sri. Raghavappa, seeking a share out of the share allocable to her father; filed after 14 years of O.S.No.475/2008.¶95
Prior proceeding
Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed an application under Section 24 CPC in Misc. Petition No.137/2022 seeking withdrawal and transfer of O.S.Nos.781/2020 and 511/2022 to be tried analogously with O.S.No.475/2008; allowed by the impugned order.¶106
Prior proceeding
At the time of the transfer order, O.S.No.781/2020 was at the stage of framing of issues and O.S.No.511/2022 at the stage of service of notices.¶106
Prior proceeding
Order dated 21.07.2023 in I.A.No.1/2023 in O.S.No.475/2008 rejecting the request for recording common evidence in the suits; challenged in W.P.No.21233/2023.¶88
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.475/2008 pending for over 17 years and at the arguments stage for about 3 years.¶121

Sri. Kanthamma v. Sri. C. Vishwanath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kanthamma v. Sri. C. Vishwanath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rekha Alias Shailaja W/O Bhimappa Vs Sri Bhimappa S/O Basawantappa Karigar

Mrs Ashabi Nadaf W/O Raje Sab Vs Mr Raje Sab S/O Noor Sab

Smt. Pooja W/O Vinay Patil Vs Shri. Vinay S/O Rajkumar Patil

Sri Panchamukhi Nutrients Private Limited, Vs Mr Prasanna.K

Kempamma Vs Panchayath Development Officer

Sri.M.S. Krishna Setty Vs Sri.S. Kempanna S/O Late K Shankarappa