Smt Sharadamma Gurubasappa Vs Sri Suresh G

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42368 WP No. 22262 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 22262 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT SHARADAMMA GURUBASAPPA W/O LATE G.H GURUBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT NO 892, 38^TH CROSS, 20^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH T- BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 041 (SINCE DECEASED BY LR)

¶8

MS. SUPRIYA RANI SHIVAKUMAR D/O KM SHIVAKUMAR AND G. UMARANI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. 892, 38^TH CROSS, 20^TH MAIN, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 041

¶9

ALSO R/AT NO. 131, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU-570009

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI.VEERESH M. UPPIN., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI SURESH G

¶16

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE. G H GURUBASAPPA R/AT NO. B-2-905, L AND T SOUTH CITY APARTMENTS BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU -560 076

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42368 WP No. 22262 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. G. UMARANI D/O LATE GURUBASAPPA W/O DR.K.M SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO. 384, 32^ND BLOCK CENTRAL GOVERNMENT QUARTERS SARJAPUR ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560 034

¶20

DR. G SIDDESH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE. G H GURUBASAPPA R/AT NO. 897, GURU OM SHARADA CLINIC, KANTHARAJA URS ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 009

¶21

SRI.M RUDRAPPA DEAD BY LR'S

¶22

SRI. G R LOKESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE RUDRAPPA FLAT NO. 7, SALURU MATADA BUILDING, NEAR VINAYAKA PARK, BASAVANAGUDI, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201

¶23

SMT. GR MANJULA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O LATE.RUDRAPPA PLACEMENT OFFICER, JNNCE SHIVAMOGGA-577 201

¶24

… RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE COURT OF PRL. SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MYSURU NOT TO HEAR THE APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 152 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN FDP NO. 16/2019 (ANNEXURE-E).

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:42368 WP No. 22262 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Heard learned counsel for petitioner

¶32

The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying to direct the Court of Prl. Small Causes & Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru not to hear the application filed by Respondent No.1 under Section 152 of CPC in FDP No.16/2019 and to dismiss the said application.

¶33

It is the case of petitioner that she is the granddaughter of Smt. Sharadamma Gurubasappa, who was defendant No.1 in the suit. The plaintiff/G. Suresh had filed a suit in O.S. No.386/2004 against Smt. Sharadamma Gurubasappa and others for partition and separate possession.

¶34

The said suit came to be decreed granting 1/4^th share each to plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3 in suit item Nos.1,3 to 6 by the judgment & decree dated 13.6.2019.

¶35

3.1 It is further case of petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, her grand-mother - Smt. Sharadamma

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42368 WP No. 22262 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Gurubasappa had executed a registered gift deed dated 12.4.2019 in her favour in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property and she was in put in possession of the said property. Infact, the petitioner and her mother are residing in the house situated in the said property.

¶39

3.2 It is also case of the petitioner that grand-mother of petitioner had also executed another registered gift deed dated 29.11.2018 in her favour in respect of her 1/4^th share of the item No.5 of the suit schedule property.

¶40

3.3 When the things stood thus, the grand-mother of the petitioner challenged the judgment & decree dated 13.6.2019 passed in O.S. No.386/2004 in RFA No.2217/2019 before this Court. This Court passed an interim order in the said RFA not to draw up the final decree. During the pendency of the FDP proceedings, an application came to be filed by Respondent No.1 under Section 152 of CPC to amend the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.386/2004 by amending the share of the parties from 1/4^th to 1/3rd share for the reason that Smt. Sharadamma Gurubasappa, who was allotted 1/4^th share in the preliminary decree had passed away and that her share of the

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42368 WP No. 22262 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

suit schedule property was to be divided among the parties to the suit.

¶44

3.4 The petitioner came to be impleaded as Respondent No.1(a) in the FDP proceedings on the basis of the gift deeds executed by her grand-mother i.e., defendant no.1 in the suit. It is contended that Respondent No.1 is aware of the fact of the gift deeds executed in favour of the petitioner. Despite this, an application was filed for modification of the decree from 1/4^th share to 1/3^rd share. This is malicious act on the part of the Respondent No.1 and to defeat the vested rights of the petitioner.

¶45

3.5 The petitioner opposed the aforesaid application by contending that the said Smt. Sharadamma Gurubasappa/defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit had gifted her share of the suit schedule property to the petitioner and that the application itself is not maintainable.

¶46

3.6 It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner despite the above state of affairs, FDP Court proceeded further in the matter, however no order is passed. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:42368 WP No. 22262 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

I have perused the petition papers and given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶51

Apparently, it is seen that the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be partly decreed and the trial Court awarded certain shares to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner herein is the grand-daughter of Smt. Sharadamma Gurubasappa, who was defendant no.1 in the suit. Though the application filed by the Respondent No.1/plaintiff under Section 152 of CPC, the petitioner herein has filed detailed objections contending that the application is not maintainable. The FDP Court has not yet decided or passed orders on the application filed by Respondent No.1/plaintiff under Section 152 of CPC. The petitioner is before this Court in the present petition seeking a direction to the FDP Court not to hear the application filed by Respondent No.1/plaintiff under Section 152 of CPC.

¶52

I do not find any good reason to agree with the contentions putforth by learned counsel for petitioner. The reason is that the petitioner has already filed detailed objections to the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 152 of CPC and it is for the FDP Court to consider

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42368 WP No. 22262 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

whether the application to be entertained or rejected based on the averments in the application and the objections putforth by the petitioner and the contentions urged before the FDP Court by both the parties. It is not proper for the petitioner to approach this Court to seek an order and a direction to the FDP Court not to hear the application filed by Respondent No.1 under Section 152 of CPC. The petition is premature. I do not find any merit in the petition filed by the petitioner.

¶56

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶57

O R D E R

¶58

i) The writ petition is disposed of. ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to urge all grounds that are agitated before this Court in the FDP proceedings and the FDP Court shall deal with the matter independently in accordance with law without being influenced by any opinion expressed by this Court in the present petition.

¶59

iii) If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order that would be passed by the FDP Court on the application filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff under Section 152 of

¶60