Karnataka High Court
Sri C Muddaiah S/O Late Hanumanthaiah vs Sri Doddegowda on 3 June, 2013
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA
WRIT PETITION NO.10829 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI C MUDDAIAH
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED 67 YEARS, R/A NO. 2341/A,
9TH MAIN ROAD, E BLOCK, II STAGE,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-10 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.RAMA MOHAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI DODDEGOWDA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/A NO. 79/2, LAKSHMAIAH
GARDEN, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
MAGADI ROAD, DASARAHALLI,
(NEAR STATE BANK OF MYSORE)
BANGALORE
2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O DODDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/A NO. 79/2, LAKSHMAIAH
GARDEN, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
MAGADI ROAD, DASARAHALLI,
(NEAR STATE BANK OF MYSORE)
BANGALORE
3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE C N CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/A NO. 11, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
4TH CROSS, HOSAHALLI (NEAR
MAHESHWARA TEMPLE),
2
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-40
4. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH
R/A NO. 13/B, RAILWAY POLICE QUARTERS,
PLATFORM ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE-20
5. SMT. CHANNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHIKKATHIMME GOWDA
R/O BUCCHHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BULOOR HOBLI, SASLA POST,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DIST.
6. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
W/O B H THIMMARAYAPPA
R/O BAICHAKUPPE VILLAGE,
TAVAREKERE POST, MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
7. SMT. GANGA HANUMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O B GANGABAIRAIAH,
R/A NO. 562, OPP. TO BEERA DEVA GUDI,
SUBASHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
8. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O NARAYANAPPA,
R/O BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST. ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI.RAMESH, ADV. FOR SRI.S.K.V.CHALAPATHY, ADV. FOR R1 & R2
R3 & R5 - SERVED
SRI.R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADV. FOR R6 TO R8
SRI.R.K.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R4)
---
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned
3
order passed by the Trial Judge in OS.No.85/09 dt.15.3.12,
vide Ann-F and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following
ORDER
Petitioner who is plaintiff in O.S.No.85/2009 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge at Nelamangala is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 15.3.2012 at Annexure- F passed on IA No.14 filed under Order 26 Rule 10(A) of CPC in the above said suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application IA No.14 on 20.8.2011 praying the Trial Court to refer the LTM of Arasamma in the gift deed dated 26.5.1975 for comparison with the LTM of Arasamma present in the sale deed dated 17.2.1962 executed by her vendor and obtain expert opinion, but the Trial Court erred in rejecting the same.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there 4 is no LTM of Arasamma in the sale deed dated 17.2.1962. Under such circumstances, the very application filed by the petitioner - plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 10(A) of CPC is ridiculous. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. In the result, petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV