Karnataka High Court
Anasavva, W/O.Late Basavanneyya ... vs Veerupaxayya S/O.Basavanneyya Mathad ... on 11 March, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD : > : DATED THIS THE 117 DAY OF MARCH. 2011 BEFORE ~ wy = THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM. MOHAN REDDY. yo. WRIT PETITION No. 66306/2010. (an A cro) BETWEEN: l. OMT.ANASAVVA, W/O.L AT FP BASAY ANN IBY WA MATHAD a? HIREMATH, AGE 64 YEARS: OCS "HOU SEHOLD Be ARIL, I ©. BARADI-NOW AT KANANAT AL Ab: AGH, TO & 6 DIST HA (VERT st a KAMAL AVA vEfOLAI KHANDAYY: AS HIREMATH, As a a VE ARS, - OS HOU > Be AGRIL: RR; ©.RAMAGERI TO SHIRAHAT DI St GADAG, 3. PUTTA¥YA, 3/0. BASAVANNEYYA MATHAD @ » HIREMATH, "AGE 42 YEARS, OCC AGRIL, R/O.BHARADI, NOW AT ATAMBAC OE ND DIST HAVERI. PETITIONERS (fy SRI: PG MOGALIL, ADV) "OLA NOCF EB i, VEERUPAXAYYA S/O,.BASAVANNEYYA M¢ ATHAD ae AGE 36 YEARS, oS R/O.BHARADI, TO & DIST HAVERT. 2 SHANKRAYYA S/O. BASAV ANNEYYA MATHAD © - AGE 34 YEARS, R/O. BHARADI, TO & DIST HAV ERI Bo RARE A AEA CS EPR EP AY Y AA (REM, ATH AGE 30 YEARS, R/O.MALGUND TO HAN. AGALy. DIST HAY ERI 4. RENUKAVVA, W/OJJIRAYYA. SALI AA TH AGE 28 YEARS, | R/O.BALEHOSUR, TO SHIRAHAY rl, DIST GADAG- 5. CHANNAVVADIW/O, BAS. AY ANNEY a Ma ATHAD AGE 54 YEARS, =~ . R/O. BHARADI, 'TO & b ior BAVERL: RESPONDENTS (RL TORS SERVE Dy THIS. WRIT PETTON-FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THB, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE UAT HAVER, IN OL.S.NO. 86/2006, ON ED 17/08/2010, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW 7,-VIDE ANNEXU PRE-D DATED 21/07/2010 AND wT Ly & IN COMING ON FOR ORDERS THE COURT ORDER
The ection of the plaintiffs LA No.7 under order 1 Rule 3 and 10 r/w Section 151 CPC in 0.8. No. 86/06 (3:
by order dated 17/8/2010 of the Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Haveri is called in question in this petition. the petitioner/plaintiff filed [A.Ne. 7 te implead.. as. immovable property belonging to the joint' family, ra alleging to have come 'to know. of the salef purchase on 2/7/2010, wherice the defendants Filed an the affidavit in lieu of- recording." examination "in chief. That application | was "bp No se d by "the: re spondent-defendant, contending that it was an admitted fact that the parties are in joine possession. of the suit schedule properties and the property sold by them bearing house No.19 is i nota joint family ancestral property, but, the self , acauired property of defendant Nos. 1] and 2.
"2. The Court below having regard to the fact tha eb the application was filed at the belated stage of the cs proceedings more appropriately, 4 years after the suit lor partition and separate possession of joint: family. property was instituted and as the lowing of che application would lead to del iay in disposal of, the suit, _Tejected the application by-the-order impugned" enn
3. Heard the learned counsel fe for the parties.
4. In a suit for part! tion and separate possession a purchaserof the suit propert v is, neither a necessary nor proper party Lo thie srtcdedings y say so because, the purchaser cannot and is not required to prove the case of either of 1 the: parties." 'The relationship of the parties, the status of | the joint family and whether the suit | schedule properties are the joint family /properties are 7 te quired 'to be answered in order to determine the shares sre ch: m rember of the joint family so as to draw a preliminai " decree. The presence of the purchaser of cthe Joint "family Property will be essential Ofly at the final decree proceeding when equitable distribution of
- the properties is undertaken, so that the said property wey ara 1 could be allotted to the share of the member who had conveyed the same.
Though the trial court did not eonsider the application im the aforesaid perspective, nevertheiess, odid-arrive-at-the.correct.conclusien . The order im pugned | cannot be faulted with.
The petition devoid of merit is accordingly rejected. Vmb"