Ganapathy Subraya Bhat vs Mahabaleshwara Ramachandra Bhat on 1 April, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Ganapathy Subraya Bhat vs Mahabaleshwara Ramachandra Bhat on 1 April, 2010

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda

1N THE: HIGH CGURT G}? K;é;iai§:A*:*.é;I:é;  
CERCUIT BE:N£':H AT BHARWAD-".%. _ " *

DATED THIS  oi? ',A.1.'fE%?AII;_: 
THE HONBLEE MR. JU$TIEI{g'fB';,'-Eff'; S'}11YLEN'DRA'4KUMAR
THE HON'BLE""MtR.. 3L;:3*:>1c%£:{;N}ANANDA
WRIT .APPEAL. N Q. msks af .1999 {LR}

BETWEEN:    J   M.  .
Ganapathj?' $1:1bara3*a'Bi1s¢, 
Agéd aLbe1§1t 59'fVycar€3;' _ 
S /0 ST-ii. S1i'mfaya,TpLingappa Bhat,
R/ O' Muro or, '1'-q: 
Dist: 2U.fC$':11'fE1 Kaiznadééz.
 A, "      ~Appe11ani:
 . {By SQ Dinesh l\{/I-.» .K:;Q<:a:ni§
AV  A V"L"Sril'A"LG.Krfishna Murthy,
 '  .S;€3_,Bhaﬁ"L.8'W3rers Eng;
   B'N,,P:'ai§a$i'::, Advacatég)

"  " *..?a§aEiabai&shwa§ra Ramaahazzdra Bhafsg
" =  égged abau: 43 years,
8;' cs Eaia Earnaciaanéra Bhai,
R/3 Mania Kumta '£'a1:1§}
Uiiara Karirzaéa Qistrici.

_  



:$

3.1»)

Sri Gapal Subray Bhat,

Aged about 58 years (3011)

At: 'x/IR' Kamai Buiﬂing,
Prabhatnagar; Honavar,

Uttara Kannada District.   

Sri. Vishwanath Subray Bhat',
Aged about :35 years (son), '
At: Hosaheravatta, ' 
Near Railway Line,
I-Iosaheravatta, Ku__mta, V
Uttara Kannada ]3_i_s'trict_f

Smt. Sumithra  vgaa 

Aged about 53 year's"(da11ght::_r},  «V " 'V '
103 / 104,1 :--71..cf_'«3r of B;;u3'--l~dih.g"9i,"-- V' 
Phase 11-,  Valley' _VCo¢«a;j .S0<:iety,
Near C€':>dba1'}.dai= Rgﬁaﬁl, "    

Tha new   '.r:_ét)*,--I ;;1\/Iaharash {rat V

Sri; Shrika"1ii:"S'ub_fay' Bhat,

Aged about 51' §}'ea1*.s_;*{son)

Care:  Entegfprisess

$3.3 R0aLi,'Sirs1'.,  

~ E-Ettaiaa KaI1f18.C1_§.__:.'iSffiCi.
' V. 3 ;Snﬁ:..A'§{ain<akshi @ Lakshmi Kan:
" V _E'a1fi'1':atra:i:1anan Bhatg
" -£§1ga%:'z $i}3{'C3V3;f§_3C'F.e75 years?

-- A ._W/0, Eaiai; fifankataramana Bhaig

"§iE;z.'?'8;'iQih 'A3 Cress,
Prasijanéhanagar,

AA '=~3anga};a:*a»§6€} Q39.

 The Karnaiaiia Apgaiiaéa '3E':i*m:::a1

E'vi'S.B2.1i1é§.1':g, ﬁr: Ambsﬁkar Veeéhi?
Baizgaiisraﬁéé $3 3;,

WA. 'i458z'2§i}§

«R€S§()§"}{§€E'1'§S



'évié. 745852999

{By Sri. 'J.R.Data.::3 for RLR3;
Sr: Krishnaznurthy G Hasyagar 83
Sri.V.F'.Ku1ka.rni, for R};
Sri. Dinesh, Ram, GA for R7)

This Writ Appeal is filed agaiiist €f.:_ﬁf'€::.{'5fdé'r' éf
Single Judge dated 08.07 .1999 pasS'f;jd'i:19' WP;  33 

1996 C/W W.P.N0. 34004/1996'.   "

The Writ Appeal coming   D.V.
Shylendra Kumar, J, mar;'u3Rthe_f0110§§§fnVg9; "  

This appe.é}.1<'i:%:3:VVL:§)ne writ appeai
we have ever5 fair the past 11 years

Without aiiy fhgztﬁe  Vf*easQ:f19

2, An uﬁs?§i1iing'w. rr:én'115'ef"ééf a joint family' 'WhO 911$ in

_posse§§i§i:£r1;ef méssﬁéf tlﬁe joint family properties is fighting

"~§.i:iAga;:i:0::: _f£<;{.g§i'«--:)Ver Ehe quaniifisatien af share in pmperty

asgéit'-._':i%i}éj§':$1i%i<1§é:a:'}7 éscree gramteé by 81% Ciézii Cauri,

iriéd Eiis Eiatéé ii': ﬁirst apgeaé? tasted suzszsegg which was

 g;":f:.,0i E*E§_fv€:5é" as the dscréés made in 'aha Firs: Aggeai was $31:

% ~9gs§a§§§ ﬁzis cam»: ii; 233;: %%s.2$?'f2§i}2.



'\§v'IA, ?4§8f2€}(}':}

3. As of new? Specie} Leave Petition Ne.99/238$? is

efiaimeei 'ie be pending before the Supreme 
based on the same, the appellant has been  

avoiding scrutiny ef this Writ  

meritless.

4. The Writ Appeal uneier    K.e§.rnataka
High Court Act is direetehhd  by the
learned Single  wherein the
order passed:   Apilhaﬂehllate Tribunal in
Appea} 5996 was reversed and
the erdehvfxé ﬁeputy Commissioner was

restored? whe"'~.w'as.Vfarietihefiing as a Court Commissioner

.f"é;:h.de1».':,j§e§*::io1154 ef"€PC fer the purpose of impiementing

&i!._{§é;§:Qh'ef«..j:reg3_ei*:iee in terms ef the ereliminary decree

  geeeeerfihhy thee' Ceurtg

  AA  tfeneeiree free': the greeeediegs ef ihe Qegeeziy

 '-Cezigmisséener, whe eheuiﬁ have effeeieé éévisiee eé'

 '";3:*Ve§e:"f:ies by himseh', the: he zheughi it was heéezxz his



WA. ?45Sf2Q€}9

Appellate Tribunal was questioned by the present A};§ﬁ3~e'1ient

and another' person in WP. No.331()8/199_€3§'_ .éwfi€71j'":V;'7¥'?_:'M.

N0.340O4/1996 and the learned Siftgle Ju~u1g»e'::j~thLe1ght u 

proper to set aside the order pee'sed-Aeby A'{:1E{e.'

Appellate Tribunal and rester*e'«._.j:he o;:'c:1e1f  

Deputy Commissioner,

8. It is in this'-baekgre'uf1'd;"the  Writ Appeal
under Section .4-1'-of   High Ceurt Act is filed.
9. Th¢":..m~y  "Appeal is doubtful. We are

ef the View  it  .;_rieﬁ ':':1.eir1tai11a.b1e} not only in the light

theV_~e'pi:1fieie e:§p§"ee$e.d by the larger Bench ef this Ceurt

2:: 'THAMixiAN§*€.e§'e..ease, but also due ﬁe the reasen that the

e§'p5ee1{.*-is  meriie es the ieerneeé Siegie Judge has

 {Eerie   ihimg ii: teetering the View taken by the
 §.,;%efe%.:i3v'«..ACe§n:eies§ener eehieh View wee ii: eeefezezity with
  Vgeeeiimieery decree peesed by {he Civil Cent': and the

 "'--v, reieeh§ef iheﬁ: ieee' been eregeét izzée peeeeeéinge ueeer

 



WIA. ?4SSf28G9

Sectiori 54 CFC because of mishandiizig sf 

Asst. CO1fI}I1'1iSSiC:f1€I' had been iaisigset E:{V"1"i'§}:if,.V"bY"_§Zi'}_é 

Deputy Commissioner? though the  :deIé§a.ti'i3i::

exercised by him was hopelessly"¢4.:;*ongi.*~ V .

10. The reason given by tiie ifribunal
for accepting the Appeal and not one
with jurisdiction    functionaries
acting underi. record findings
contrary  1;¢::3'c.V(:3.'rdeic'i_"v"15'3?ﬂ:Civi1 Court, that order
of the tri'b«u::i'alV  to be set aside and the

1earned:.~si:f1g1é4" Jiidige ii-asévsprsciseiy dame this under the

 . .Oa:°'deVi:'V'  in iiiié 'appeal.

11;; 2 E§§1i"5€§v.".1V€i"_'i_'i-"_L_S'€Vf.<$i.V'£"V?:{£ case; it is E:{}?;iC€C1. éhaiét dispziie 3633333

is 9:15 ipiégﬁéi useii agiicziiiurai iaiié measuring abaui 36

 ifi SE3: §'€@.55/3 which ascsrdizig is present

  i3 :19': 3. gaizii famiiy §ra§s:iy. in Qegsgiai §€':?CG'I1§;

 '  _  i'\fa.2Q'7'/2§@2§ iiiiss: Ceiiri has héié tbs saié pmpsriy

 



WA. 74s.g;2e09

as a joint family property available for partition: 

 

subject matter of this Writ Appeal which is  

area of the land available for V-part-itiorll a,m(m_ge't--.i'etl:ie&

members of the joint family, which  as

decree passed by this Court  

be gone into in the Writ Apzpealpn'  

12% We have noticed   this appeal
on merits has_E¥.eei§"l'e;1ee'esl3ﬁlll3f_4Vaveieletll by the Appellant

by persuading orli adjourning the matter

en the premise Vtl;'a'.r..V_the appellants have filed Special Leave

Petition j20©.§3the Judgment and decree

paSS€C14;b:v'_l,hlS.V egarl 1:9; RSA No. 207/2002 and it is the

  €:l1:eQ_zappeVll'a§1t that this Writ Appeal should be

 till the deeieien en the Special Leave

l  ?3e::itie'a_l f};T:e:1e.:'~"l':ae happened fer else past mere than ene

 and ﬂee erﬁee sheet bears 'zeeiizzzezly of the member ef

llaéjeizeeemente the appellant has manageé ee gee ané in

':'E:pVe.§:$;:'ee§":} this appeal had alse been eliemieeeﬁ fee HGIE

 



ii} __
'€~£.E~X. '?:'«'§§v832{30§

presecution and :r*e$i:Q:'ec:L but next U) be _pr:Q"'e.ee(:iffe~a:1i 34:1»?

meritse

13. Though the matter is 1istec1,ej'%:'toeday%"far 'the'-.s{1E>ﬁ1i's$ion " '

of learned counsel for the" VVVi':1z2ake ﬂi1s~.gx;i':§':e about
the status of Special Leave  Sri. Dinesh
M. Kulkarni,  the Appellant
requests for   /me Very reluctant to
adjourn  matter is pending

in this Cour: "for 'the  "years without any rhyme or

reason ;a;:1c:I__ wi{:i*1e1;t"the.':ne{tter getting a look on the merits

x"vve"" ;I;1a"ve. unveiled bestowing our attentien tcday

appeal on merit

 it isvetentended by Sri "ixiP'E{u}ka:ni} Adveeaie for

"-:9e~$§:s":::15:§.e::t 1135:; ?:ha': a§peaE is $3? mainiainaﬁeg ?e:'

eefgfra? ii: is the submissieri 0f the Eearneé eeusgzsei fer

  erzﬁgpeﬁaezt €313: the Eeegned Singée Judge fer' iéie gizzrpese sf

reeersémg ihe Gide? ea? 'she iafﬁataka ﬁppeéiaie Trébuzzeé Ease

exercised ﬁne erigizzaé jueisééeizierz ef {hie Sear': 'by §SS1§§§':,g a

 



 

ii

 74f38:'2{}O9

Writ of eertierari fer quashing the erder ef the Kaifeeiaka

Appellate Tribunal and fhereferee the Appeai  _

4 is Very much tenabie.

After having heard Sri. K/CR3 Déttaﬁ learried '<:<'>L11'i:;.:_e}--.fV;irriu

respondent r1<:>,1 and 3 who is t11:eV--sare}1"iteet'ef '_Wi*ie{Fe'fiti0nVV

filed by respondents, we*"fi§x.d Judge has exercised jurisdietioedé and has not exercised any Article 226 in as much as v'd_a€e"'1'earned Single Judge though one for quashing is virtually . vghe order passed by the Kar:1a,te.1«:e. Ap:i:5e1:iate.7'Trib1:'isai and restere the erder of the D'"epuﬁ}* Ceiizrriissienezi

15. she fact siifeetien said make erze 41:::ders*s:;e,V;ri.:.e'eeu€ the develepmenisg the 'erief facts are: 'the 4_;:sVe:'f§ee"--:3zere :12: iiiigatéen in s eazsétéee seifz eefere iéfze Gem":

{fee Civil dudge, Karivazj, is §,S§'%e,§/1§6?'; E¥f:?}€F€i1E ii:

..,__%%;:~es Etaeid the': mes: sf she suit sehedeie ezeeertées are geiet 'vV.A. '}'45 8f12{%G9 family properties and therefore plaizltiffs are e_:g;e:1eess§j:":§:. share accerding to their entitlement} a--«.. preliminary decree was made. This wiasA i'1c)7*:_ Weleome to the defendant and were R.A.No.22/1990 on the file of which was allowed in part trial court was modiﬁed 1:0 some in turn was questioned by were not ready to acceptv__thVe by First Appellate Court, ii'; RSA No.20?'/2002 before this Court vsigcécessful as this Court in terms

4._.Qfjudg1§}:ienf and 'cieeﬂreei dated 08.01.2008 passed in RSA / the appeal; set aside the judgment by the First Appellate Cent': and the jasgdgineisi aszdfv aeeree ef the trial Gear: was festereda 4-is agaéiesi sag Juagzeeat and aeezee passea E3}; §ff1}:S ____?Ciee}:9: in ESSA §§€e.2S?/2§Q2, Speeiai Leave Petition has eeen V §s:efefred eefere ﬂee Seerezee Ceurt.

WA. 7458f20{}9

17. Even after this narratient we find that the Vleeefxied Single Judge by aﬁowing the Writ Petition; by _ the order passed by the Karnataka restoring the order passed by the:'»._Dept:t;y«'Ce':i'ifni'ssir}1te;fe has only ensured that the Commissioner which is in e0nsQn§é19,eeV,§vith'the preliminary decree is sustained.

18. If such is" rn}i1n1€1e':': <5f:e§§:erei.se of power and jurisdiction in a writ petition, it is only u:1V:1der_A tAi**:_--ie1Vef3.22-7:V'j~1§_risd£ctien and not any part of Article 226 invoked for passing the vorder. ' Q t "

/Egg shouiet have been fer setting asiée the.e§;e{er e§.tttf;j:'.::teta11y er §'€ffiQi?€ the side: gassed by the ~ e.22t3%t_e:£t§:* petéaaps it eetziel have been undetsteed that V' exercise sf some ear: ef the gzzriséietiezz tméer 22% 9f the C€3f1S§:i?:"%..1ﬁ£3Y§ sf iedéa but sue}: is net tése A ease £32 tee present Writ égepeai, "K. 2:: V 33%, 'zs,5_3z'2e09

20. Ultimately, the erdef passed by the :ea:5§¢{&f " ~ Judge is oniy ':0 ensure {hat the revermeé an: RV' relevant point were functioning eff'eet- . agricultural lands by metes Vaﬁd..v_%bo1ii:ds; vaet in*' conformity with the p1"e1i--:dina1jy"'deVere'eeApaeeed-..byEthe trial court, which is the right law and if so, there is abso111::e--1f,:§':~no even fer argumer1.1:'s order passed by the learned of exercise 0f original jurisdictidié. wide; Qf "Constitution of India.

21. In; 'evither'4"v:ew,~§ihie- en appeai which richly deserves dddieixéieeed We dismiss the Appeal ievying Re.1G3G{)!3I,/w payable ie by appeﬂant to V V' :{*ee1::<;»1*'3';«:ie:faf:"§e' 3f3e.::d 3 in equai ereeeriieng V' A' 'E§é:he" me: 313 :29: depeeéted ieiihén 4 weeksg registry is '-dirergieéd; is isezze eertifieete in fewer ef reepezzdeﬁte E azzd

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Ganapathy Subraya Bhat vs Mahabaleshwara Ramachandra Bhat on 1 April, 2010

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda