Karnataka High Court
Sri M E Chandrappa vs Sri M E Basavaraj on 28 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.4445 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI M E CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE M ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT "NISARGA"
MIG 68, K H B COLONY
GOPAL GOWDA EXTENSION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 205.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SARITHA A L, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DODDAMANI RADHA VASANTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI M E BASAVARAJ
S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT "SUDARSHAN NILAYA"
SHIVAPPA NAIKA EXTENSION
2ND CROSS, VINOBHA NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 205.
2. SMT. NARMADA
W/O LATE M E RUDRESH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
3. KUM. AISHWARYA
2
D/O LATE M E RUDRESH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.1640/2, OPP. TO KEB OFFICE
HADADI ROAD
DAVANGERE-577 001.
4. SMT. ANNAPOORNA
W/O LATE MRUTHUNJAYA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
5. SRI SANJAYA
S/O LATE MRUTHUNJAYA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R4 AND 5 BOTH ARE PRESENTLY
R/AT B2, VICEROY APARTMENTS
BEHIND MOTHERHOOD HOSPITAL
SARJAPUR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 035.
6. SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE M ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
AGARADAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLEHONNUR HOBLI
BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 227.
7. SRI M E MALLESH
S/O LATE M ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT SREE SHAILA
HOUSE NO.155, 3RD CROSS,
RAJENDRANAGAR EXTENSION
SHIVAMOGGA-577 205.
8. SMT. M E SHARADAMMA
3
D/O LATE M ESHWARAPPA
W/O SRI G SOMASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO.318, SHIVA NILAYA
NEAR OLD WATER TANK
1ST STAGE, VINOBHANAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.
9. SMT. M E NETRAVATHI
D/O LATE M ESHWARAPPA
W/O SRI K C RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.185, "BASAVAKRUPA"
3RD CROSS, KANAKA LAYOUT
VINOBHANAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.
10. SMT. M E LEELA
W/O DR Y S MANJUNATHA
D/O LATE M ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
HOME MAKER
C/O BASAVESHWARA NURSING HOME
TILAK NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.
11. SMT. M E PUSHPA
W/O SHIVU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
HOME MAKER
R/O LAS ANGELIS
USA, C/O BENAKAPPA
RETIRED ENGINEER
OPP. GANDHINAGAR
FOREST OFFICE
TILAKNAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.
....RESPONDENTS
4
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-F DATED 19TH JANUARY, 2022
ON IA.NO.XXVI IN ORIGINAL SUIT.NO.222 OF 2006 ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT
SHIVAMOGGA IA.NO.XXVI BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the defendant No.7 in OS No.222 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Shivamogga, challenging the order dated 19th January, 2022, rejecting IA.XXVI.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that, the plaintiff has filed suit against the defendants seeking relief of partition and mesne profits. During the pendency of the proceedings, Defendant No.7/petitioner herein, has filed IA.XXVI, seeking issuance of summons to the Deputy Commissioner of Shivamogga to produce the details of immoveable properties mentioned in the application. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application in IA.XXVI by 5 impugned order dated 19th January, 2022. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.7 has presented this Writ Petition.
3. Heard Smt. Saritha A.L, appearing on behalf of Doddamani Radha Vasanta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who contended that the plaintiff has acquired several properties in his name out of the joint family funds and those properties have not been included in the suit and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court in this Writ Petition.
4. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully considered the prayer in the application. The same reads thus:
"Document sought to be produced by the Dy.Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga are as under:
1. Any or all documents pertaining to the immoveable properties like house, sites and land standing in the name of Sri M.E., Basavaraju, the plaintiff herein."6
5. In the light of the aforementioned prayer made in IA.XXVI, I am of the opinion that the burden lies on the defendant to furnish particulars relating to the properties which were left out in the suit. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as there is no error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn