Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahadevappa vs Smt. Basammanni on 10 April, 2026
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19953
WP No. 9091 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9091 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
R/AT PANCHAVALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. S. NAGARAJ , ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
1. SMT. BASAMMANNI
DHANALAKSHMI W/O SADASHIVAMURTHY,
MURTHY
D/O LATE MALLAPPA,
Location: HIGH
COURTOF AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
R/O MADAPURA VILLAGE,
TALAKADU HOBLI,
T. NARASIPURA TQ,
MYSURU-DISTRICT 571124
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED).
2. SMT. CHINNAMMA
W/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED).
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19953
WP No. 9091 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. SRI. KUMARA,
S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
4. SRI. DORESWAMY,
S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED).
5. SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
W/O. MAHADEVA SWAMY, D/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O KATTEPURA VILLAGE,
TALAKADU HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571122
6. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O GURUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 211, MEGALAPURA VILLAGE,
YELWAL HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571130
7. SRI. SHIVAMURTHY
S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
8. SRI. MALLESHA,
S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.2,3,4,7 & 8 ARE
RESIDING AT PANCHAVALLI VILLAGE, KASABA
HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:19953
WP No. 9091 of 2026
HC-KAR
9. SMT. MANI,
W/O MAHADEVASWAMY,
D/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O KALLIPURA VILLAGE,
SOSALE HOBLI,
T. NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571120
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 14.01.2026 PASSED IN P & SC NO. 5006/2025 ON THE
FILE OF VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT
HUNSURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding maintainability.
2. Office has raised an objection regarding maintainability on the ground that the impugned order is passed under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, and there is an appeal provided under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act. Since the petitioner has an efficacious -4- NC: 2026:KHC:19953 WP No. 9091 of 2026 HC-KAR appeal remedy, the writ petition filed under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
3. In the order relied by the petitioner in the case of H.S.VASANTASENAIAH vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC reported in ILR 1994 KAR 2628, the law laid down is well settled. The doctrine of alternative remedy does not bar where order is illegal, affected by error apparent on the face of record or error of jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the petitioner has filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India and the petitioner has an efficacious appeal remedy provided under the statute.
4. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HR