Karnataka High Court
Smt Anjinamma vs Smt Basamma on 29 November, 2016
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
R.P.NO.302/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT ANJINAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O LATE PATALAPPA,
RESIDENT OF CHKKAJALA
VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
PIN CODE-562157
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. L LANKESH, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)
AND:
1. SMT BASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA
2. SRI MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA
3. SRI M NARAYANSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA ,
4. SRI M SHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA,
5. SMT BHAGYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
D/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
2
A K COLONY,
MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE- 562157
6. SMT LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
W/O CHINNAPPA,
D/O LATE DRIVER MUNYAPPA,
7. SMT MALA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
D/O LATE DRIVER MUNYAPPA,
DEFENDANT NO.6 & 7
R/AT NO.243,
10TH CROSS, MANJUNATHANAGARA,
MARATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560037.
8. SMT ARUNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O VENKATASWAMY ,
D/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA,
9. SMT MANJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O SURESH
D/O LATE DRIVER MUNIYAPPA
RESPONDENT NO. 8 & 9 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.208,
KANTEERAVANAGARA,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560078.
10. SMT POOJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT SIDDARTHA COLONY,
NEELASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560007.
11. SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3
W/O SUBBANNA,
R/AT NO.305,
SUNKALAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
YELAHANKA
BANGALORE-560064.
12. SMT MARAMMA @ AMALA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O ANJINAPPA,
R/AT NO.95,
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560064.
13. SMT RAJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O DODDAKANNAPPA,
R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI
VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
PIN CODE 562157.
14. SMT DYAVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
W/O SAKAPPA,
R/AT KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
PIN CODE-562157.
15. SMT KENCHA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O DODDAKKANNAPPA,
R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI
VILLAGE, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
PIN CODE-562157.
16. SMT DEVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O THIMMARAYAPPA,
R/AT SOLUR VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
PIN CODE-562157.
4
17. SMT DODDABODI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O THAMMAIAH,
R/AT CHIKAJALAVILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
PIN CODE-562157.
18. SMT MARAKKA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O LATE PATALAPPA,
R/AT CHIKAJALA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
PIN CODE-562157.
19. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
D/O MUNIHANUMAPPA,
20. SRI KUMAR @ KULLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/ATCHIKKAJALA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
21. SMT AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
D/O LATE PATELAPPA,
22. SMT PATALAMMA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
D/O LATE PATELAPPA,
23. SMT VENKATESHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
D/O LATE PATALAPPA,
RESPONDENT NOS. 19 TO 23 ARE
RESIDING AT CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
PIN CODE-562157.
5
24. SRI MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O LATE BAGALUR MUNISHAMAPPA,
RESIDENT OF CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
PIN CODE-562157
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 12/04/2016 PASSED IN WP
No.57446/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
There is a delay of 47 days in filing the review petition. As to whether any fruitful purpose would be served by ordering notice on I.A.No.1/16, this Court has perused the order dated 12.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.57446/2015 (GM-CPC) whereunder it was noticed that writ petitioner was respondent No.6 in FDP No.9/2011 and had challenged the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Court adjudicating the final decree proceedings rejecting the application of respondent No.6 for stay of final decree proceedings sought for on the ground that writ petitioner has 6 already initiated proceedings in O.S.No.673/2014 and without waiting for the outcome of said suit, final decree proceedings should not be proceeded.
2. One of the grounds on which the stay was sought for was by propounding a Will dated 22.05.1970 not only by the writ petitioner but also by the respondent Nos.8 and 9 (in FDP No.9/2011) said to have been executed by late Munishamappa and contending that they have acquired title to suit schedule property and said Will was traced recently. In fact, trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that decree passed in O.S.No.268/1995 came to be affirmed in RA No.2/2008 and confirmed in RSA No.2340/2010 and as such, in the final decree proceedings said judgment cannot be reviewed or reopened. This Court after examining the contention of the petitioner had dismissed the writ petition by affirming the order of trial Court. It is this order which is sought for being reviewed on the ground that petitioner is making all efforts to get the suit O.S.No.673/2014 disposed of and in the 7 meanwhile if final decree proceedings are proceeded it would affect the right of the petitioner.
3. It is open for the petitioner to prosecute the suit OS No.673/2014. However, under that guise of its pendency final decree proceedings cannot be stayed particularly when it has reached finality. In that view of the matter, this Court finds there is no error apparent on the face of record or any other ground made out for reviewing the order passed by this Court and as such, this court is of the considered view that issuing notice on I.A.No.1/16 would only be an exercise in futility. Hence, I.A.No.1/16 for condonation of delay stands rejected. Consequently, review petition also stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE DR