Shantha W/O Mudiyappa Gadagi (Since Died)Prakash S/O Mudiyappa Gadagi Vs Venkatesh S/O Mudiyappa Gadagi

SHANTHA W/O. MUDIYAPPA GADAGI (SINCE DIED) PRAKASH S/O. MUDIYAPPA GADAGI, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TALKAL, TQ. KUKANOOR, DIST. KOPPAL-583232.

¶10

MALLIKARJUN S/O. MUDIYAPPA GADAGI, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TALKAL, TQ. KUKANOOR, DIST. KOPPAL-583232.

¶11

PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

VENKATESH S/O. MUDIYAPPA GADAGI, AGE 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. INDRAKEELA NAGAR, NOW AT SRI VENKATESHWARA KRUSHI KENDRA, SHARADHAMMA E.NALAWAD COMPLEX, GAVIMATH ROAD, GUNJ CIRCLE, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶16

RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A. NO. 11/2021 IN O.S. NO. 7/2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT YELBURGA DATED 04.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F &ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2642 WP No. 109311 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. No. 11/2021 in O.S. No. 7/2021 dated 04.12.2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Yelburga, the petitioners/defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are before the Court.

¶24

I.A. No. 11 is filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to file written statement. Respondent herein who was the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking partition. In that, the defendant has filed written statement and also has filed a counter claim. As per the counter claim, the counter claim properties are also joint family properties, same being purchased under the nucleus of joint family. These properties are not shown in the plaint intentionally by the plaintiff. But the plaintiff and the defendants are having equal share in those properties. The plaintiff has not chosen to file the written statement to the counter claim. Later the written statement has been filed denying the version of the defendant no. 1 contenting that those properties are the self acquired properties. The trial Court felt that in these circumstances where the rights of the parties have to be substantially decided, had permitted the plaintiff to file the objection/written statement to

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2642 WP No. 109311 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the counter claim. That is questioned by the defendant before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submit that

¶30

the trial Court in view of inordinate delay, ought not to have allowed the application. It is submitted that the defendant has not even chosen to state why the delay has occurred. When the plaintiff is not vigilant, the trial Court ought not to have come to the rescue of the plaintiff.

¶31

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that trial Court considering the substantial interest of both the parties, being a suit for partition has rightly allowed the application and there are no grounds to interfere.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The suit filed is for partition. The defendants have filed a written statement and also a counter claim stating that some of the properties are not included and sought partition in respect of those properties. No doubt there is a delay on the part of the defendants in filing the written statement. Later it has been stated that those properties are the self aquired properties and the same cannot be partitioned. In

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2642 WP No. 109311 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the backdrop of these facts, where the rights of the parties have to be decided, now by allowing this application, no prejudice will be caused to the defendants and the trial Court has rightly allowed the application and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The writ petition is dismissed.

¶38

(ii) All IAs in this writ petition stand disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶40

BVV CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80

Shantha W/O Mudiyappa Gadagi (Since Died)Prakash S/O Mudiyappa Gadagi v. Venkatesh S/O Mudiyappa Gadagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantha W/O Mudiyappa Gadagi (Since Died)Prakash S/O Mudiyappa Gadagi v. Venkatesh S/O Mudiyappa Gadagi

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 Bhagirathi W/O Baburao Balulad Vs Pandugouda S/O Venkanagouda Patil

Mohammad Iqbal S/O Syed Adam Vs State Bank of India

Smt Meghana W/O Sushant Patait Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Sri. Divakar S/O. Gurupad Sutar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rudravva D/O Basappa Budnur Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaraj S/O Basappa Kabbur, Vs Smt. Ningawwa W/O Siddappa Kabbur