Sri. Gangadhara vs Sri. S. H. Hanumanthaiah on 8 March, 2016

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Gangadhara vs Sri. S. H. Hanumanthaiah on 8 March, 2016

Bench: Aravind Kumar

                          1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016

                     BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

             W.P.NO.45234/2015(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.GANGADHARA
S/O S.H.HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SONDE KOPPA VILLAGE,
AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572111                 ..PETITIONER

(BY SRI.VISHNU    HEGDE       &   SRI.JAGADEESH   M.L.,
ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.SRI.S.H.HANUMANTHAIAH
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SONDEKUPPA VILLAGE,
AMRUTHUR VILLAGE,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572111

2.SMT.VARALAKSHAMAMMA
W/O. HANUMEGOWDA,
D/O. S.H.HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THUBINAKERE VILLAGE,
AMRUTHUR HOBLI,
                                2


KUNIGAL TALUK-572111

3.SMT.ANNAPOORNA
W/O. RAJANNA,
D/O. S.H.HANUMANTHAIAH,
NATIVE OF SONDEKUPPA VILLAGE,
AMRUTHUR HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK-572111       ..RESPONDENTS



   THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE COURT BELOW AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.2013, IN FDP
NO.3/2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC AT KUNIGAL ANNEXURE-A.


    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Heard Sri.Vishnu Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioner.

2. Respondent-petitioner had filed a petition under Section 54 of CPC with a prayer to send preliminary decree passed in O.S.81/2006 to the Tahsildar, Kunigal to effect partition and to allot the legitimate share of the plaintiff i.e., 3 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to hand over possession to the plaintiff in respect of her share and to submit a report in that regard. Pursuant to the same report of Tahsildar has been received by jurisdictional trial court. Impugned order would indicate that both parties have accepted division of schedule property and they have been put in possession of their respective shares. However, learned counsel for plaintiff i.e., third respondent herein filed objections to the commissioner's report contending that Tahsildar has not effected mutation of revenue records in respect of shares allotted to them. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 herein have also filed similar objections before trial court. For reasons best known petitioner did not file objections to the commissioner report but contended that there is a second appeal pending in R.S.A.No.1151/2011 against the said Judgment and decree. Sri.Vishnu Hegde, learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that the second appeal has also been dismissed for default vide order dated 31.07.2013. In that view of the matter, no useful purpose 4 would be served by keeping present petition pending. Hence, on the ground that petitioner herein had not filed objections to the commissioner's report and had also not obtained order of stay of Judgment and decree in the second appeal, present writ petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE SBN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court