Sri Parameshwar Rao Vs Smt Geethamma

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:15129 WP No. 7029 of 2026

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7029 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PARAMESHWAR RAO S/O LATE MOTHI P RAMRAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF MOTHI SWEETS AND RESTAURANT R/AT NO. 141/1-2, P B ROAD DAVANAGERE – 577 006.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASANNA B R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O LATE THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶15

SMT. NAYANA D/O LATE THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶16

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT HEBBALU VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 556.

¶17

SRI RANGAPPA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15129 WP No. 7029 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶21

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE ERULAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶22

SRI CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶23

SMT. HANUMAKKA D/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶24

RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 7 ARE R/AT HEBBALU VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 556.

¶25

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

¶26

SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶27

RESPONDENTS 8 & 9 ARE R/AT ANAGODU VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 556.

¶28

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

¶29

SRI VIRUPAKASHAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15129 WP No. 7029 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

RESPONDENT NO. 10 & 11 ARE R/AT ANAGODU VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 556.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 20.11.2025 ON I.A. NO. 15 IN O.S.NO. 542/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn) AND JMFC DAVANAGERE VIDE ANNX-H AND TO ALLOW THE I.A. NO. 15 AS PRAYED FOR.

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

This writ petition is filed by defendant No.4 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.11.2025 passed on I.A. No.XV in O.S. No.542/2016 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.4 under Order 14 Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing additional issues has been rejected.

¶37

The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for

¶38

partition and separate possession seeking 1/3rd share in

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15129 WP No. 7029 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the suit schedule property. The petitioner/defendant No.4, who is the purchaser of the suit schedule property, filed an application for framing additional issues with respect to court fee, pecuniary jurisdiction, and regarding the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.4.

¶42

Insofar as court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction are concerned, even as per the documents produced by the petitioner/defendant No.4, the guideline value of the property is Rs.30,00,000/-. The respondents/plaintiffs have valued the suit at Rs.11,00,000/-. If the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs is only for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property, then the value of the property would fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Davanagere. Therefore, the trial court has rightly not framed any issues in that regard.

¶43

The trial Court has framed the following issues:

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15129 WP No. 7029 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(1) Whether plaintiffs prove that suit schedule property is their ancestral property and they are in joint possession and enjoyment over the same?

¶47

(2) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

¶48

(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

¶49

(4) Whether defendant No.1 proves that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient?

¶50

(5) Whether defendant No.4 proves that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

¶51

(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3^rd share in suit schedule property and such other reliefs as claimed?

¶52

(7) What order or decree?

¶53

Above are the issues framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. It is just and proper to decide the suit for partition on the basis of those issues. The additional issues sought by the petitioner/defendant No.4 are not relevant to the suit filed by the plaintiffs for

¶54