Karnataka High Court
Shri Maruti vs Shri Balappa on 7 November, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
WP 311€3€>,2G08
ma THE HIGH com'? or' KARNATAK_}§;*--- I
CERCUIT BENCH AT D}iARWA.i); _ : ' L.
DATED Tms THE Tm 132301 r~§§}&'£&13:§RV:§2e.Q:gL"' ' _
BEFQRE ' ' V *
THE HOWBLE MR.JUsT:t:«I2§V:"'RAM I£«E(§_Pi2*;I;%' Rvigzgjm
wm' PE'r1T:m{r":%Na.:--é12;d6i:2.Q§)a. (GM-CFC}
BETWEEN: ._
Shri Maruti, 'filiiléékepiaa,
Age: 46 yeg.r's,"Még'eif, (}c_c.;_;figgIic:'u1t,ure¢»
R,' 0: Tég.' D'ha:;x%ad. Petitioner
(By Sri.
AND:
1.
Shri Balappfi; .S'$I:La:i3.kVé:r:z-lppap Guiedkoppa, Age: «Majar, 00¢: "AgI'ict11ture, Ri€;.:.. Ammmbhavi, Tq;"& flist: Dharwacl. 3:) ffihankarappa Guledkoppa, 2'; gé: . _ I*4ia7j'ex'_; . "Agriculture, R] :3: £{usugaj_ Gui, Amminbhavi, Tq. 8:; Dist: ffjhaxwad.
Uhvéppa, S/0 Shankarappa Guiedkoypa, '* A.ge: "S34 years, Gee; Agriculture, R/'o;-Kusugal om, Amminbhavi, Tq. 6:. Dist: iiiihanvad.
. Ashok, S/o Shankarappa Guledkoppa, Age: 38 years, Gee: Agiculture, R/0: Amminbhavi, Tq. $5 Dist: Dhaxwad, 5 WP 311062098
5. Smt.Kamalavva, W/o Ramappa Amyer, Age: 56 years, Occ: Househoid work, L- R/0: Hosur, Tq; Bajlhoagal, Dist: Bclgaum;---.,.__ '
6. Smt.Nee1avva, W/0 Hafi.umanth'=Gou,da1fkudé1f,' Age: 35 years, Occ: Household Wt';-rk,'v. A' " . --. R] 0: Dodawad, Tq: Bajihon-gal, Dist: Belgaum.
This Writ ;)etition_isr. uI_1Cier A1'£..icies 226 and 227 of the Constitufion of India Vpraylngio '"'qi:saS"h. Annexure 'A' the order dated 11.9.2008 passed by Judge (Jr. D11.) Dharwad not to*procec§.:i' 'with as the jurisdiction is ousted in pu1's1::3.13%3e to R<:f<5:.' ms_A;fii I'/'W. Section 9 of Thisi'wzif* G13. »f:§r pre}1m' 1'1:1a.ry hearing this day, tht:,C0u:j§ m:~1c'£'e: tiic«--fQ11ow;ing:
% The aefefigéat 5.3.: in {).S.No.321/2007 on the file of mg" Civil Judge (Jr. D11.) 3:. JMF-'C, Dhaxwad, oréer dated 11.09.2608 posting the suit to hear arguaents on adclitional issues aiong with other issuss a£Lthc;"£i1;11e 9:" final disposaz of the: suit, has presented this " Vpefifiion under Article 226 of the Canstiiution of india.
2. The case of the petitioner is that an extent of 2 acres 12 gtmtas of land, out of 5 acres 29 guntas, in Sy.N<:-.129 of E 7% . _ Z?té:_S}}:¥.n:ients * . L' W13' 311062098 : 3 : Aminbhavi vfllage when granted in his favour pursuant to an application under Section 77A of the KamatakaT',:."Land Reforms Act, 1961, by an order during Dec:embe1§~'20{)u5__'f_£:§.éi§g¢ the pefifionefs exclusive ané absolute .¢ statement refuting the claim of flaming of a preiiminazy issuc; raver suit, and hence the Trial not V' the consideration of sa_izi{""[email protected]'@ 'a.1,<)ng xx%ith'"thc mam' issuss.
I11L{iAVsV ,:;§*i:f;21l;»vfiy,»j th§'p,e'titioncr ané the other parties to O.S.No.i$2:1:} 30$}? of the same family. Thfi pkeagiifigs éd 3io£V di'scl(V$sc the exisfxnce of an earlier partitiozi gaaembers of the: joint family of which the of the members and it is not known as to Whether' to {)1.G3.19?4, that was a partition of assets the" family. in the absence of material, it goes Without Sayifig that it is for the petitioner to estabiish, by cogent __fi§VidCI1C€, that the land granted in his name, under Sccfion '?"?'A of the Act, was to 1:113 exclusion. of all the members of the jezzxint fainiiy.
WP 311062808 : 4 :
4. Although the order ixnpugned is czypfic and dcees not assign reasons or findings, izevertheittzss, the stumbled upon the correct decision. In the ¢ evidence that the petitioner is the owner of thfifiszgit _« property to the exclusion of othiir family, no exception can be §a_ken icy like ordéxf A-léf Court to hear the prel1mm' ' 'main Vi i$su<:':.
\&?Iit1§c§ti(Jii1:__i$ a,;:c§:xi;1;g1§g mjected. Sd/-E Judge ' V V. K.1n$*f'..