E Umamahesha Vs E Basavaraj

THIS W.P. IS UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.07.2025 PASSED IN FDP NO. 4/2016 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KADUR REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1(A) OF CIVIL

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO FILE LIST OF DOCUMENTS AS PER ANNX-A; CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO FILE OBJECTIONS AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS AS PRAYED FOR IN I.A.NO. 12 AS PER ANNEXURE-B IN FDP NO. 4/2016 FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1(A) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KADUR.

¶58

IN WP NO. 23236/2025

¶59

BETWEEN:

¶60

E UMAMAHESHA

¶61

S/O LATE ERA NAGABOVI AGED ABOUT 46 YRS R/AT K.M.ROAD AT POST KADUR 577 548 CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶62

...PETITIONER

¶63

(BY SRI. ONKARA K B.,ADVOCATE)

¶64

AND:

¶65

E BASAVARAJ

¶66

S/O LATE. ERA NAGABOVI SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶67

UMADEVI

¶68

W/O.LATE E. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶69

6 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

ROOPASHREE D/O. LATE E.BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶73

MURALIDHARA S/O.E.BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶74

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT 1^ST FLOOR, OPP TO KIRAN STORES, 3^RD MAIN, 13^TH CROSS VINOBHANAGAR, DAVANGERE-577004.

¶75

E NAGARAJ S/O LATE ERA NAGABOVI, SINCE DEAD BY LRS,

¶76

SMT.SARASWATHI.B.N. W/O LATE.E.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶77

SRI. MANOJ S/O LATE E. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶78

SRI.CHAITHRA D/O LATE. E. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶79

RES NO 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO. 129, 38^TH MAIN, SHIRIDI SAI BABA ROAD AMBEDKAR COLLGE NAGARAABHAVI BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶80

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

E VINODH KUMAR S/O LATE ERA NAGABOVI AGED ABOUT 55 YRS

¶83

R/AT K.M.ROAD AT POST KADUR-577 548 CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶84

E MANJUNATHA S/O LATE ERA NAGABOVI AGED ABOUT 52 YRS R/AT K.M.ROAD AT POST KADUR 577 548 CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶85

E CHANDRAMMA

¶86

D/O LATE ERA NAGABOVI SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS.

¶87

SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE, CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶88

SRI NANDA D/O LATE E CHADNRAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶89

SMT.NALINA

¶90

D/O LATE E CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶91

SMT.NITHYA D/O LATE E. CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶92

RES NO.5 (A) TO (D) ARE R/AT K.M.ROAD AT POST,

¶93

8 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

KADUR 577 548 CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶97

SMT DHANALAKXMI D/O ERA NAGABOVI W/O G PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YRS R/O ANANTHARAMAIAH COMPOUND MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 018.

¶98

SMT KRISHNA KUMARI D/O ERA NAGABOVI W/O S RAMESH AGED ABOUT 51 YRS R/O BYATARAYANAPURA YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶99

B.S. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE ERA NAGABOVI 2^ND DIVISION CLERK COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, 17^TH CIRCLE 1^ST MAIN GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶100

...RESPONDENTS

¶101

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02-07-2025 PASSED IN FDP NO. 4/2016 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KADUR REJECTING THE APPLICATIONS IA NO.11 AND IA NO.12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 AND ORDER VIII

¶102

9 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

RULE 1 (A) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE PETITION AND TO PRODUCE THE LIST OF A IN THE INTEREST OF DOCUMENTS AS PER ANNEXURE JUSTICE AND EQUITY; (2) CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO FILE OBJECTIONS AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS AS PRAVED FOR IN I.A.NO.11 AND 12 AS PER ANNEXURE IN FDP NO. 4/2016 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 AND ORDER VIII RULE 1 (A) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KADUR.

¶106

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

¶107

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶108

ORAL ORDER

¶109

The petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.No.157/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge [Sr.Dn], Kadur [‘ the civil Judge’ ] which is decreed by the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2005 [ Annexure-B ] in part holding that the deceased plaintiff [ now represented by the first to sixth respondents ] will be entitled to one ninth share in the suit schedule properties dismissing the plaint as

¶110

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

against 'B' schedule property holding that the petitioner is the absolute owner thereof.

¶113

The petitioner's appeal as against this judgment and decree in RFA No.598/2006 [PAR] is disposed of by this Court on 03.02.2023 [ AnnexureC ]. The Court, insofar as the petitioner's case that he has borrowed huge loans and developed item Nos.6 and 7 of the plaint schedule 'A' properties, has observed thus:

¶114

"However, since it is contended by Sri.E.Uma Mahesha that he had raised huge amounts of loan and had improved item Nos.6 and 7, it would be open for him to plead and prove this fact before the Final decree Court and request that the repayment of the loan be taken into account, while dividing the properties."

¶115

The final decree proceedings filed after the Civil Court's judgment and decree dated 22.12.2005 is continued for partition by metes and bounds.

¶116

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

The petitioner, in terms of the liberty reserved by this Court, has filed applications [IA Nos.11 and 12]. The petitioner's application in IA No.11 is for leave to file objections to the final decree petition and the application in IA No.12 is for leave to produce documents. The civil Court viz ., the Senior Civil Judge, Kadur has disposed both these applications observing thus after adverting to the liberty reserved by this Court in the first appeal.

¶119

"In view of the aforesaid specific observations, it is open to the 2^nd respondent to establish that he has raise huge amounts of loan and had improved item No.6 an d7 properties and it is also open for him to request this court that the repayment of loan to be taken into account while dividing the property. It is also observed that it is also open for the 2^nd respondent to seek for allotment of item No.6 and 7 properties to his share, if he is able to establish that he had in-facts raised huge loans and improved the said properties. If the aforesaid specific findings are taken into consideration, the enlisted documents referred above are not at all relevant for the purpose of

¶120

12 -

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, this application is also devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the points No.1 and 2 under consideration are answered in the Negative."

¶124

Sri Onkara K.B., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is indeed aggrieved by the civil Court's refusal to permit leave to file objections to the application for final decree but the petitioner's grievance would be redressed if this Court disposes of the petition observing that the petitioner's right to seek equity in terms of this Court's observation based on the pleadings in the original proceedings is not prejudiced because of the observations by the civil Court.

¶125

As regards the leave to produce

¶126

documents, Sri Onkara K.B. submits that these documents are essentially the bank statement, a copy of sale deed, affidavit signed by the propositus and

¶127

NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶128

13 -

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

loan documents. The learned counsel submits that these documents would demonstrate that the petitioner has expanded his own finances and also borrowed money to develop item Nos. 6 and 7 of the suit schedule 'A' property and therefore he is entitled to seek allotment of these properties exclusively to his share as observed by this Court.

¶131

The question of interference with the Civil

¶132

Court's impugned order is examined in the light of these two submissions, and the questions are:

¶133

[a] Whether this Court must interfere in W.P.No.23236/2025 and permit the petitioner to file Objections to the Final Decree petition.

¶134

[b] Whether this Court must interfere in W.P.No.31506/2025 and permit the petitioner to produce additional documents.

¶135

This Court must first observe that the

¶136

petitioner's right to prove his assertion that he has

¶137

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶138

HC-KAR

¶139

availed loans to improve Item Nos.6 and 7 of the suit schedule 'A' property stands vindicated by this Court's order in RFA No.598/2006 [PAR]. Therefore, he must be at liberty to rely upon this Court's observation in this regard and also the pleadings, if any, in the original proceedings. Therefore, the petition in W.P.No.23236/2025 must be disposed of with such observation.

¶140

As regards the petitioner's grievance with the Civil Court's decision to reject the application for leave to produce documents, this Court must observe that the Civil Court has considered none of the reasons assigned. This Court is of the view that the Civil Court should have examined the merits of the request in the light of the liberty reserved so that the petitioner's right to seek allotment on the afore grounds is not rendered illusory. As such, the following:

¶141

15 -

¶142

NC: 2025:KHC:44092 WP No. 31506 of 2025 C/W WP No. 23236 of 2025

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

ORDER

¶145

[A] The writ petition in W.P.No.31506/2025 is allowed in-part

¶146

setting aside the Civil Courts' order insofar as it rejects the petitioner's application [IA.12] for leave to produce documents restoring the application for consideration after due opportunity to the respondents, and

¶147

[B] The petition in W.P.No.23236/2025 stands disposed of with the observation

¶148

as aforesaid.

¶149

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶150

SA ct:sr

E Umamahesha v. E Basavaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E Umamahesha v. E Basavaraj

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

M/S Aurashine Essentials Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited

Mr Ramachandra K Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Dror Shlomo Goldstein Vs Union of India

Mr Sunil Jagannathan Vs Bandhan Bank Limited

Sri. S. Veeranna Vs Sri. Bommanna

S R Bheemarayashetty Vs G Ganeshamurthy