Karnataka High Court
Smt. Manjula W/O Venkangouda Patil vs Neelawwa W/O Basappa Bandi @ Kudagi on 14 September, 2022
-1-
WP No. 103690 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.103690 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.MANJULA
W/O VENKANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: YARAGATTIM, TQ: SOUNDATTI.
2. SMT.AKKAMADEVI
W/O RANGAPPA BANDI @ KUDADI,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SASAVIHALLE, TQ: NAVALGUND.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI J.S.SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
1. NEELAWWA
W/O BASAPPA BANDI @ KUDAGI
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: CHIKKALGUONDI, TQ: BILAGI.
2. SRI CHANNABASAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA KUMBAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKAIGUNDI, TQ: BILAGI.
3. LAXMABAI W/O TIMMANNA VARMANTH
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HULAGERI, TQ: BADAMI.
4. SRI VASANTARAO
S/O BHIMARAO KULAGOD,
-2-
WP No. 103690 of 2017
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIPPALKATTI, TQ: RAMDURG.
5. SMT.LAXMIBAI
W/O RUDRAPPA KEMPALINGANNAVAR,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: CHIKKALAGUNDI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
6. MELAPPA
S/O RUDRAPPA KEMPALINGANNAVAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. TEACHER,
R/O: CHIKKALAGUNDI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.M.PATIL, ADV. FOR R5 & R6.
NOTICE TO R1 & 2 : SERVED.
NOTICE O R3 & 4 : DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 28.02.2017 PASSED ON THE I.A.NO.5 & 6 IN FDP
NO.7/2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ANF JMFC, BILAGI
THE COPY WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2017 passed on I.A.Nos.5 & 6 in FDP.No.7/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi vide Annexure-A has filed this writ petition. -3- WP No. 103690 of 2017
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.36/2007 for the relief of partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and preliminary decree dated 03.11.2009. The petitioners filed final decree proceedings for drawing up of final decree. Proposed defendant No.5 has filed application in I.A.No.5 to implead herself as defendant No.5. Proposed respondent No.6 has also filed another application for impleading herself as defendant No.6 in the final decree proceedings. The applications were opposed by the petitioners by filing objections to the said applications. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, allowed the applications. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 & 6. -4- WP No. 103690 of 2017
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial Court without assigning any reasons has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Hence, he submits that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have no right to file application as they have already filed suit for declaration which is pending for consideration. He submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary and erroneous. On these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are necessary parties. Further he submits that petitioners behind the back of respondent Nos.5 and 6 have obtained decree. He submits that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are proper and necessary parties. Hence, he submits that trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order and prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Heard, perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. -5- WP No. 103690 of 2017
7. It is the case of respondent Nos.5 and 6 that respondent No.5 has purchased the said property prior to filing of the suit in O.S.No.61/2014. The petitioners without arraying respondent No.5 in the said suit have obtained decree behind the back of respondent No.5. Respondent No.6 contends that respondent No.6 is the member of the family of the petitioners and got share in the suit property and the petitioners by suppressing the said fact have obtained decree in O.S.No.36/2007. The said contention is opposed by the petitioners by filing written statement contending that respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a suit in O.S.No.61/2014 for the relief of declaration and injunction and the said suit is pending and they are not proper and necessary parties. From perusal of the impugned order, the trial Court has not assigned any reasons while passing the impugned order. Further, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order. Hence, on this ground alone itself, the impugned -6- WP No. 103690 of 2017 order is liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed on I.A.Nos.5 & 6 in FDP.No.7/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi vide Annexure-A is set aside.
iii) The trial Court is directed to reconsider I.A.Nos.5 and 6 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE EM,MBS