Dismissed¶¶57

Smt.Vedhavati v. Smt.Nagarathna

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2025WP/8950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Issue no.1 framed by the Trial Court and the re-casted issue sought through IA-13 are one and the same. ¶¶57

Smt.Vedhavati Vs Smt.Nagarathna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting IA-13 filed by defendant nos.3(a) to 3(d) (legal representatives of deceased defendant no.3) seeking re-casting of the additional issue framed on 22.01.2020. +1 more

¶¶47

Court's answer

Issue no.1 framed by the Trial Court and the re-casted issue sought through IA-13 are one and the same.

¶¶57

Ratio / Principle

Since the plea that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1 was specifically raised in the written statement of defendant no.3, the burden to prove the same always lay on defendant no.3's side and could not be shifted to the plaintiff by re-casting the issue.

¶¶57

Key takeaways

The Trial Court was completely justified in rejecting IA-13; there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.ratio¶¶57
Operative direction: since the suit is of the year 2013, the Trial Court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from receipt of the certified copy of this order.ratio¶¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendants in O.S.No.638/2013 (partition and separate possession suit, Shivamogga) against the order dated 12.02.2024 on IA-13 rejecting their request to re-cast the additional issue framed on 22.01.2020 ('Whether defendant nos.3(a) to 3(d) prove that the suit schedule properties are the selfacquired properties of defendant no.1?') so as to instead read 'Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are acquired by defendant no.1 with the aid of joint family nucleus?'. The High Court held that the existing Issue no.1 ('Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the coparcenary properties of the defendants and herself?') and the proposed re-casted issue were one and the same; since the plea of self-acquisition emanated from the written statement of defendant no.3, the burden to prove it always lay on her side and could not be shifted to the plaintiff. The Trial Court was therefore completely justified in rejecting IA-13, with no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Writ petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to expedite and dispose of the suit, pending since 2013, on merits within six months of receipt of the certified copy of this order. (Petition against petitioner no.1 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 27.11.2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49650 WP No. 8950 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 8950 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.VEDHAVATI

¶11

W/O SURENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEAWRS R/O NO.5, 1ST FLOOR C STREET, 3RD CROSS KLINK ROAD, EAST MALLESWARAM BANGLAORE - 560 003.

¶12

SMT. KARUNA W/O LATE BELLI NARASIMHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEAWRS R/O SREERAMA NAGARA SANTHEKADUR POST

¶13

NIDIGE HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 222.

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. CHITRA D/O LATE BELLI NARASIMHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶16

KUM. SUPRIYA D/O LATE BELLI NARASIMHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶17

DUSHYANTH S/O LATE BELLI NARASIMHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶18

G.N. REVANNA S/O NARASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶19

PETITITONER NO. 2 TO 6 ARE ALL RESIDING AT SREERAMA NAGARA

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:49650 WP No. 8950 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SANTHEKADUR POST NIDIGE HOBLI SHIVAMOGA - 577 222.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI SURENDRA KUMAR N, ADV.)

¶26

AND:

¶27

SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O B.L. SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O 2/152, PAPER TOWN BHADRAVATHI - 577 302.

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(V/O DTD:27.11.2025 PETITION AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED; SRI PRASAD B.S, ADV.)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO. 13 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 638/2013 DATED 12/02/2024 BY THE THIRD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SHIVAMOGGA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Defendants are before this Court in this writ petition filed

¶35

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12.02.2024 passed on IA-13 in O.S.No.638/2013 by the Court of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Shivamogga, vide Annexure-G.

¶36

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶37

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49650 WP No. 8950 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Respondent herein has filed O.S.No.638/2013 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Shivamogga, claiming the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent herein that defendant no.1 - Narasegowda who is her father had ancestral properties and the suit schedule properties were purchased by him from the income derived out of the ancestral properties.

¶40

Defendant nos.1 to 4 have filed separate written statement and opposed the suit claim. In the written statement filed by defendant no.3, a contention is raised that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1 - Narasegowda.

¶41

The Trial Court based on the rival pleadings, had initially framed five issues and subsequently, an additional issue was framed on 22.01.2020. IA-13 was filed on behalf of the legal representatives of deceased defendant no.3 to re-cast the additional issue framed on 22.01.2020. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49650 WP No. 8950 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

vide the order impugned, has rejected the said application and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

¶45

Defendant no.3 has raised a specific contention in her written statement that the suit schedule properties are the selfacquired properties of defendant no.1 - Narasegowda, and based on the said pleadings, an additional issue was framed on 22.01.2020, which reads as under:

¶46

"Whether defendant nos.3(a) to 3(d) prove that the suit schedule properties are the selfacquired properties of defendant no.1?"

¶47

IA-13 is filed by defendant nos.3(a) to 3(d) to re-cast the aforesaid additional issue as under:

¶48

"Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are acquired by defendant no.1 with the aid of joint family nucleus?"

¶49

Perusal of the issues framed by the Trial Court would go to show that based on the contention raised by the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties were purchased by defendant no.1

¶50

Narasegowda from the income derived out of the ancestral properties, and therefore, the suit schedule properties are

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:49650 WP No. 8950 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

coparcenary properties, Issue no.1 was framed by the Trial Court, which reads as under:

¶55

"Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the coparcenary properties of the defendants and herself?"

¶56

So far as additional issue is concerned, the same is framed on the basis of the specific contention raised by defendant no.3 that the suit schedule properties are the selfacquired properties of defendant no.1 - Narasegowda. The prayer made in IA-13 is to re-cast the additional issue.

¶57

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that based on the issues and additional issues framed by the Trial Court, the parties have already led their evidence. Issue no.1 and the re-casted issue are one and the same. Since there is a specific plea in the written statement of defendant no.3 that suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1, the burden to prove the same is always on them. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was completely justified in rejecting IA-13. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:49650 WP No. 8950 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Since the suit is of the year 2013, the Trial Court shall make all endeavours to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a

¶62

period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶63

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶64

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12.02.2024 passed on IA-13 in O.S.No.638/2013 rejecting the application filed by the legal representatives of deceased defendant no.3 to re-cast the additional issue framed on 22.01.2020; order produced at Annexure-G.¶¶35
Court of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Shivamogga · 12.02.2024
Prior proceeding
Respondent (plaintiff) filed O.S.No.638/2013 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Shivamogga claiming partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff's pleaded case: suit schedule properties were purchased by defendant no.1 Narasegowda from income derived out of ancestral properties.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
Defendant nos.1 to 4 filed separate written statements opposing the suit claim; defendant no.3 contended the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1 Narasegowda.¶¶40
Prior proceeding
Trial Court initially framed five issues and subsequently framed an additional issue on 22.01.2020.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Additional issue framed on 22.01.2020 placed the burden on defendant nos.3(a) to 3(d) to prove the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
Existing Issue no.1 framed by the Trial Court required the plaintiff to prove the suit schedule properties are coparcenary properties.¶¶55
Prior proceeding
IA-13 was filed on behalf of the legal representatives of deceased defendant no.3 seeking re-casting of the additional issue so as to read that the plaintiff proves acquisition with the aid of joint family nucleus; opposed by the plaintiff's objections.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Proposed re-casted issue sought in IA-13.¶¶48
Prior proceeding
By the impugned order the Trial Court rejected IA-13; petitioners approached this Court under Article 227.¶¶44
Prior proceeding
Based on the issues and additional issues framed, the parties had already led their evidence before the Trial Court.¶¶57
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 27.11.2025, the petition against petitioner no.1 was dismissed as not pressed.¶¶29

Smt.Vedhavati v. Smt.Nagarathna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vedhavati v. Smt.Nagarathna

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

Joseph Vs B.P. Raju

Smt Saroja Vs Sri Suresh Babu

Smt Rajitha Vs Sri Chetankumar

Sri. Rokkappa Gowda. R Aliais @ Babu. R (Babu) Vs Smt. Kalpana. R

Kumara @ Kumaraswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Narasamma Vs Sri M v Satishkumar