Karnataka High Court
Smt.Nagavva W/O Irappa Pujar vs Nagappa S/O Bharamappa Hugar on 23 March, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2017
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
Writ Petition No.107785 of 2016 (GM-CPC)
Between
1. Smt.Nagavva wife of Irappa Pujar
since deceased by her legal representatives,
1 (A) Santosh Son of Veerappa Pujar,
Age: 28 Years, Occupation: Agriculture
1 (B) Mallikarjun Son of Veerappa Pujar
Age: 26 Years, Occupation: Agriculture,
Both are resident of Konantamagi Village,
Taluk and district: Haveri.
2. Renavva @ Renuka wife of Chandrappa Halasur
Age: 68 Years, Occupation: Household,
Resident of: Malapur Village,
Taluk and district Haveri.
3. Tippanna Son of Bharamappa Hugar
Age: 36 Years, Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Kalledevar Village,
Taluk: Byadagi, District: Haveri.
4. Kallappa Son of Bharamappa Hugar
Age: 36 Years, Occupation: Agriculture,
2
Resident of Kalledevar Village,
Taluk: Byadagi, District: Haveri.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Vijayendra Bhimakkanavar, Advocate)
And
1. Nagappa Son of Bharamappa Hugar
Age: 56 Years, Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Kalledevar Village,
Taluk Byadagi, District: Haveri.
2. Shankarappa Son of Shivappa Maradur
Age: 59 Years, Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Tondur Village,
Taluk: Savanur, District: Haveri.
3. Nagappa Son of Fakkrirappa Hugar
since deceased by his legal representatives
3 (A) Parvatevva wife of Nagappa Hugar,
Age: 78 Years, Occupation: Household.
3b) Prabhu Son of Nagappa Hugar,
Age: 43 Years, Occupation: Agriculture,
3c) Prakash Son of Nagappa Hugar,
Age: 41 Years, Occupation: Agriculture,
All Resident of M.G Road,
City Market, Haveri, District: Haveri
4. Fakkirappa
Son of Rudrappa Kalival,
Age: 73 Years, Occupation: Agriculture,
3
Resident of Kalledevar Village,
Taluk: Byadagi, District: Haveri
5. Veerappa
Son of Hanumantappa Pujar
Age: 59 Years, Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Konantamagi Village,
Taluk and District: Haveri
... Respondents
(By Sri Nagaraj J. appannanavar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Respondent no.1 served.
Vie order dated 26.10.2016 notice to respondent nos.3(a) to(c), 4 and
5 is dispensed with.)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
dated:26.08.2016, passed on I.A.No.13 filed under Order I Rule 10(2)
of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.199/2008 on the file of
court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Byadagi Vide Annexure-F and
dismiss the I.A.No.13 with heavy cost.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group, this day, the court made the following:
4
ORDER
The present petitioners are aggrieved by defendant No.9 having been impleaded as the legal representatives of defendant No.8 though there are other legal representative of defendant No.8 who not been brought on record as the legal representative. Defendant No.9, relying on a bogus will, having filed an application seeking to implead, the same has been allowed. Defendant No.9 is, apparently, set up by the plaintiff himself to ensure that a false claim is made to the detriment of not only the petitioners but other legal representative of defendant No.8. It is this which is sought to be urged insofar as the impugned order permitting defendant No.9 to be made as defendant in the array of parties.
2. Since the defendants have already raised a plea that the suit is bad for non-joinder, in that, the legal representatives of defendant No.8 are all not on record, the same would give rise to an issue which would be a bone of contention as to whether the suit is bad for non-joinder.
5
3. In that view of the matter, the mere impleadment of defendant no.9 would not deprive the petitioners of any right. Defendant No.9 would still have to establish his case on the strength of the will which is yet to be proved.
There is no warrant for interference. The petition is accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv