Karnataka High Court
Smt Goidu Since Dead By Lrs vs Pandurang S/O Honnayya Naik on 22 November, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
WP No. 104682 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 104682 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GOIDU KOM SHANIYARA NAIK,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1. SRI. LAXMANA S/O. SHANIYARA NAIK.
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
2. SMT. MASTI.
W/O. NARAYANA NAIK.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
3. SMT. MAHADEVI.
W/O. MANJUNATHA NAIK.
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
-2-
WP No. 104682 of 2022
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
4. SRI. TIMMAPPA.
S/O. SHANIYARA NAIK.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
5. SMT. DEVAMMA.
W/O. MASTAPPA NAIK.
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
RESIDING AT NERIKULI.
MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI H.R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PANDURANGA.
S/O. HONNAYYA NAIK.
AGED ABOUT 48YEARS.
R/O. LAMBANIKERI.
KARIGUNDI ROAD. KATURABHA NAGARA.
SIRSI. TOWN-581401.
SIRSI- TQ. UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
2. GOPI.
HONNAYYA NAIK.
AGED ABOUT 46YEARS.
R/O. LAMBANIKERI.
KARIGUNDI ROAD. KATURABHA NAGARA.
-3-
WP No. 104682 of 2022
SIRSI. TOWN-581401.
SIRSI- TQ. UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
SMT. KUPPU.W/O. JATTAYYA NAIK,
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
3. MANJUNATH S/O. JATTAYYA NAIK.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
4. SMT. LAXMI. S/O. JATTAYYA NAIK.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
NARAYANA.S/O. TIMMAPPA NAIK,
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
5. JAYANTH S/O. NARAYANA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
6. ISHWAR. S/O. NARAYANA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
-4-
WP No. 104682 of 2022
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
MURDESHWAR. S/O. TIMMAPPA NAIK,
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
7. MADEV. S/O. MURDESHWAR NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
8. NAGAPPA . S/O. MURDESHWAR NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
9. SRI. SUKRA. S/O. MURDESHWAR NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
10. SMT. DEVI. W/O. MASTAPPA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
11. SMT. SANNAMMA. W/O. MURDESHWAR NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
-5-
WP No. 104682 of 2022
RESIDING AT BHATKAL. JATTANAMANE.
CHANDRAHITLU. MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
12. RAMADAS. S/O. VAMAN KAMATH.
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS.
R/O. HOUSE NO. 29. DEVASTHANA ROAD.
MURUDESHWARA. MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
13. MILAGREEN GABREIL LOUIS.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
R/O. DIVAGERI.. MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
14. MARIYAN. D/O. ATHON GOMES.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
R/O. HOUSE NO. 114.
CHANDRAHITLU.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
15. SMT. SULOCHANA. W/ORAMAKRISHNA MOER.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
R/O. HOUSE NO. 865
MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
16. SURESH. S/O. GANAPATHI HARIKANTRA.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
R/O. HOUSE NO. 623.
-6-
WP No. 104682 of 2022
MURUDESHWARA.
MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
17. MANJUNATHA. S/O. SUKRA HARIKANTRA.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
R/O. HOUSE NO. 639.HOSAHITTLA.
MURUDESHWARA. MAVALLI.2, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
18. SMT. MARIE. W/O. JUJE TELIS.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
R/O. CHANDRAHITLU.
MAVALLI.1, VILLAGE.
BHATKAL -BHATKAL -TQ. 581350.
UTTARAKANNADA -DIST.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SURESH S.BHAT
& G.M. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARY OR OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTIONS TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.12.2021, PASSED BY THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE COURT, AT BHATKAL, IN
O.S.NO.16/2014, ON I.A.NO.9, FILED BY
PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 6, UNDER SECTION
151 R/W SECTION OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
-7-
WP No. 104682 of 2022
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. It is not in dispute that one Sukra filed O.S. No.7/2022 seeking for partition in respect of Sy.Nos. 356/10, 356/8, 74/1, 74/2 & 57/9, all situate at Mavalli of Bhatkal Taluka. The suit was for partition and the suit has been filed against the Goidu, the deceased petitioner herein and others.
2. It is also not in dispute that subsequently Panduranga and Gopi (7th & 8th defendants in O.S. No.7/2012) have also filed a suit for partition in respect of eleven properties and in these eleven properties, five properties mentioned above, which are the subject matter in O.S. No.7/2012, have also been included in the suit schedule. Thus, it cannot be in dispute that in respect of the very same properties, a suit has been filed in O.S. No.7/2012 by Sukra and subsequently another suit is also -8- WP No. 104682 of 2022 filed by (defendant Nos.7 and 8 in O.S. No.7/2012), in O.S. No.16/2014.
3. The petitioners herein, therefore, filed an application under Section 10 to stay the subsequently instituted suit i.e., O.S. No.16/2014. The Trial Court, by an earlier order dated 10.04.2015 had stayed the proceedings in O.S. No.16/2014 till the earlier suit in O.S. No.7/2012 is disposed off.
4. Thereafter, O.S. No.7/2012 was dismissed and consequently the stay order become inoperative. However, the appeal in R.A. No.11/2016 that had been filed against the dismissal of O.S. No.7/2012 had been allowed and the matter was remanded. In view of the remand and consequential revival of O.S.No.7/2012 one more application was filed in I.A. No.9 seeking for stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.16/2014. However, this application is however been rejected by the impugned order.
-9-WP No. 104682 of 2022
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since O.S. No.7/2012 was in respect of the same properties and pursuant to the order of remand passed in R.A. No.11/2016, the suit stood revived, it is obvious that the subsequent suit in O.S. No.16/2014 cannot be proceeded with.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that in O.S. No.16/2014 apart from five properties, there are also six other properties and therefore the subsequent suit was not similar to the previously instituted O.S. No.7/2012 and the subsequent suit cannot be stayed.
7. In my view, since the first suit i.e., O.S. No.7/2012 was in relation to five properties, which were also the subject matter in the subsequent suit i.e., O.S. No.16/2014 and the parties were also admittedly the same, the subsequent suit would have to be stayed. It is to be stated here that questions relating to the five
- 10 -
WP No. 104682 of 2022 properties would have to be adjudicated in O.S. No.16/2014, which had been subsequently instituted.
8. The impugned order is therefore set aside. I.A. No.9 is allowed. Further proceedings in O.S. No.16/2014 shall stand stayed till the disposal of O.S. No.7/2022.
The writ petition is therefore allowed.
sd JUDGE Vnp* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37