Karnataka High Court
Mahadevashetty vs Mahadevswamy @ Mahadevashetty on 12 January, 2017
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION No.925/2017
AND
WRIT PETITION No.1375/2017(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVASHETTY
S/O LATE APPAIAHSHETTY
71 YEARS
R/O HULLEPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK
& DISTRICT PIN - 571 313.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGARAJA R.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHADEVASWAMY @
MAHADEVASHETTY
S/O LATE. RAMACHANDRA SHETTY
45 YEARS
R/O HULLEPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHAMARAJANAGARA
TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN - 571 313.
2
2. NANJUNDASHETTY
DEAD BY LRS.
2(a) RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE NANJUNDASHETTY
76 YEARS, PIN - 571 313.
2(b) SUBBASHETTY
S/O LATE NANJUDASHETTY
39 YEARS, PIN - 571 313.
2(C) MAHADEVAMMA
W/O DUNDASHETTY
D/O LATE NANJUNDASHETTY
MAJOR, NAGAVALLI VILLAGE
CHANDAKAVADI HOBLI
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK
PIN - 571 313.
2(d) YASHODHI
D/O LATE NANJUNDASHETTY
MAJOR, PIN - 571 313.
2(e) SMT.VASANTHI
W/O MADAPPA
D/O LATE NANJUNDSHETTY
MAJOR
RESPONDENTS 2(a) to 2(e)
R/O HULLEPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK
& DISTRICT PIN - 571 313.
3 RANGASHETTY
S/O LATE APPAIAH SHETTY,
68 YEARS,
R/O HULLEPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN - 571 313.
3
4. SMT. PUTTAMADAMMA
W/O KYATHASHETTY
DEAD BY LRS,
4(a) NAGASHETTY
S/O LATE KYATHASHETTY,
MAJOR,
4(b). MAHADEVASHETTY
S/O LATE KYATHASHETTY,
MAJOR,
4(c) NANJUNDASHWAMY
S/O LATE KYATHASHETTY,
MAJOR,
4(d) KUMAR
S/O LATE KYATHASHETTY,
MAJOR,
RESPONDENTS 4(a) to 4(d)
R/O MANGALA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK.
PIN - 571 313.
4(e) SHIVAMMA
W/O PUTTARANGASHETTY,
D/O LATE KYATHASHETTY,
MAJOR,
R/O HULLEPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK.
5. MARAMMA
W/O MAHADEVASHETTY
DEAD BY LRS,
4
5(a) MADASHETTY
S/O LATE JOGASHETTY
90 YEARS,
5(b) VENKATARAJU
S/O LATE MADASHETTY,
51 YEARS,
5(c) PUTTASIDDAMMA
D/O LATE MADASHETTY AND MARAMMA,
MAJOR, PIN - 571 313.
6. KUMARA
S/O VENKATSHETTY AND SIDDAMMA,
MAJOR,
DODDAMOLE VILALGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK.
7. MANJUNATHA
S/O VENAKATASHETTY AND SIDDAMMA,
MAJOR,
R/O KALLABARADIPURA VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK.
8. SHANTHI
D/O VENKATASHETTY AND SIDDAMMA,
MAJOR,
R/O KALLABARADIPRUA VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK.
9. SHOBHA
D/O VENAKTASHETTY AND SIDDAMMA,
MAJOR, PIN- 571 313
R/AT NALLUR DODDAMOLE VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK.
5
10. SMT. CHIKKAMMA
W/O MADASHETTY,
MAJOR,
R/O AT HULLEPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PIN- 571 313.
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK.
11. MANGALAMMA
W/O NANJUNDAPPA,
MAJOR,
R/O AT YADIYUR VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK.
PIN- 571 313.
...RESPONDENTS
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.12.2016 PASSED ON
I.A.Nos.16 AND 17 BY SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
CHAMARAJANAGAR IN O.S. 29/2005 AT ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner herein is second defendant in O.S. No.29/2005 which is pending on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sr.Dn, at Chamarajanagar. That suit has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking the 6 relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, at the stage of arguments, petitioner herein filed two applications one, under Order XVI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and another application under Section 151 of the CPC. The first application was in order to summon the Tahsildar to produce certain documents and to give evidence and the second application was to re-open the case. The trial court by the impugned order dated 8.12.2006 has dismissed those applications. Being aggrieved by the said order, these writ petitions have been preferred.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
3. Petitioner's contention is that Annexure-E herein which is marked as Ex.P.19 is a fabricated document and not a genuine death certificate. According to him, as per Annexure-E which is Ex.D6 the death certificate of Ramachandra Shetty alleged to be the father of the 7 plaintiff was not available, then it was not possible for the plaintiff to have obtained the certificate as per Ex.D6 i.e. Ex.P.19. Petitioners counsel contended that in order to establish that Ex.P.19 is a got up document, the Tahsildar who has issued the certificate had to be summoned in order to give evidence. It is in that regard that the applications were filed and that the trial court was not right in dismissing the applications.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the contention of the petitioner herein is that Ex.P.19 is not a genuine document. His contention is in light of Ex.D6 which has also been issued by the very same Tahsildar. If that is so, it is for the petitioner herein to convince the trial Court on that aspect of the matter. The Tahsildar need not be summoned for the purpose of giving evidence on that aspect of the matter. In the circumstances, the trial court was justified in dismissing the applications. Moreover, the applications were filed at the fag end of the suit and at the 8 stage of the arguments. The said applications have been rightly rejected by the trial court. There is no merit in the writ petitions.
5. Writ petitions are hence dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Msu.