Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rudragouda S/O Basanagouda ... vs Smt. Gouravva W/O Virupaxappa Hullatti on 13 August, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183
WP No. 102998 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 102998 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RUDRAGOUDA
S/O BASANAGOUDA MELLAGATTI,
AGE. 60 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HALE PETE ONI, SHIGGAON,
TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581205
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S N BANAKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GOURAVVA
W/O VIRUPAXAPPA HULLATTI,
AGE. 73 YEARS,
Digitally signed OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURIST,
by GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI R/O. MEDLERI, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
Location: High DIST. HAVERI-581211.
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, 2. SRI. CHANDRAGOUDA
Dharwad
S/O BASANAGOUDA MELLGATTI @ PATIL,
AGED: 71 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HALE PETE ONI, SHIGGAON,
TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581205
3. SMT. SHAKUNTALA,
W/O MALLIKARJUN TARIAGATTI,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK & AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. RENUKA NILAYA, SAPTAPUR 1ST CROSS,
DHARWAD, TQ: DIST: DHARWARD-580001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183
WP No. 102998 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. SHRI RAMANAGOUDA
S/O BASANAGOUDA MELLAGATTI,
AGED: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O SAI NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580031.
5. SMT. SNEHALATA
W/O MANJUNATH KUNNUR,
AGED: 65 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VIVEKANAND NAGAR,
SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581205.
6. SMT. GIRIJAMMA,
W/O CHANNABASAPPA DUPAD,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. PETE ROAD, MEDLERI,
TQ: RANEBUNNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581211
7. SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI
W/O HEMANNA BATTAD,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOD,
R/O NEAR BASAVANNA DEVARA GUDI,
HALEPETE, GUTTAL,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI-581108.
8. SMT. GANGAMMA @ PARVATI
W/O NINGAPPA HORAKERI,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: TEACHER,
R/O. NO.213, MIG, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580025.
9. SHRI NAGANAGOUDA
S/O BASANAGOUDA MELLAGATTI,
AGE: 54 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE, DEPUTY COMMANDANT,
R/O. III K.S.I.S.F.B.A.R HEAD QUARTERS,
DHARWAD-580008.
10. SHRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR
S/O HUSSAINSAB MULLA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183
WP No. 102998 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED: 58 YEARS,
OCC: TRADER,
R/O: KABANUR, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581205
11. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
U.B. HILL, DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI, AND
SRI. PARASHURAM C. SAJJANAR, ADVOCATES FOR
R1 TO R4 AND R6 TO R9;
SRI. B.S. SANGATI., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI., AGA FOR R11
R10 SERVED.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER MAY KINDLY BE
ISSUED, THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SHIGGAON, IN O.S. NO. 48/2021 ON I.A. NO.
13/2021 DATED. 17.03.2022 PASSED AS PER ANNEXURE-X SO ALSO
THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN M.A. NO. 9/2022 DATED. 12.01.2024
AS PER ANNEXURE-Y AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE I.A. NO.
13/2021 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183
WP No. 102998 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order may kindly be issued thereby quashing the impugned order passed by Senior Civil Judge Shiggaon, in O.S.No.48/2021 on I.A.No.13/2021 dated 17.03.2022 passed as per Annexure-X so also the impugned order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in M.A.No.9/2022 dated 12.01.2024 as per Annexure- Y and consequently dismiss the I.A.No.13/2021 by allowing this Writ Petition in the interest of justice.
b. To grant any other such other reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. Respondents No.1 to 4 had filed a suit in O.S.No.48 of 2021 seeking for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 had been filed by respondents No.1 to 4 seeking for injunction against respondent No.11-herein who was defendant No.8 in the said suit from disbursing the compensation amount on -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR account of the acquisition of property said to be belonging to the joint family in Sy.No.18/2.
3. The trial Court granted injunction and an appeal having been filed in MA No.09 of 2022, the First Appellate Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 modified the said order by directing the defendant No.5-therein, who is the present petitioner-herein from receiving any compensation amount in respect of the acquired portion of the suit property from defendant No.8-therein to an extent of 9/10th share. But however, permitting the petitioner-defendant No.5 to receive compensation in respect of the admitted 1/10th share of the petitioner. It is challenging the same that the petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Sri.S.N.Banakar., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that;
4.1. That there is already a partition between the mother and her children including the petitioner -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR and respondents and as such, no suit could have been filed for seeking further partition and separate possession and on that basis he submits that application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking for injunction restraining disbursing or collection of compensation could not have been filed and allowed by the trial Court and confirm by way of modification by the First Appellate Court.
4.2. In this regard he submits that the plaintiffs had not approached the trial court with clean hands there is fraud which has been sought to be played by them on the defendants and in this regard he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 to contend that whenever there is any fraud which has been played the suit would have to be summerly thrown out and any -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR litigant who approaches the Court is bound to produce all the documents which are vital for the decision to be rendered in this said proceedings.
4.3. He further submits by relying on Shri.Manu Vishwa Indrakumar Sood & Ors Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Another in WP No.103100/2024 dated 06.03.2025 that an award having been passed under the National Highway Authority Act, 1988 for compensation. If at all the respondents are aggrieved by the same, it is only a challenge which could be made in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
5. Sri.Vishwanath S.Bichagatti., learned counsel for the respondents who are the plaintiffs in the suit would submit that;
5.1. The gift deed executed by the mother in favour of the petitioner is behind the back of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR plaintiffs and it is for that reason that suit in O.S.No.48 of 2021 has been filed seeking for partition of 1/10th share in Neelavva's property and it is in that background is submits that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly restrained the disbursal of the compensation in favour of the petitioner who claims his right under a gift deed executed by Neelavva.
6. Heard Sri.S.N.Banakar., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vishwanath S.Bichagatti., learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 to 9, Sri.B.S.Sangati., learned counsel for respondent No.5 and learned HCGP for respondent No.11. Perused papers.
7. The points that would arise for consideration in the matter are;
1. Whether the plaintiffs could claim any interest in the property of their mother -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR Neelavva which she had acquired under a partition executed between herself and her children?
2. Whether the order of injunction granted by a trial Court as modified by the First Appellate Court is sustainable?
3. What order?
8. Answer to point No.1: Whether the plaintiffs could claim any interest in the property of their mother Neelavva which she had acquired under a partition executed between herself and her children?
8.1. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reads as under;
14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.--
(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation.--In this sub-section, "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2)Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.
8.2. A perusal of Section 14 would indicate that any property acquired by a female Hindu in whatsoever manner, whether it is under a partition, under succession or otherwise would form her individual property. 8.3. In the present matter it is not in dispute that Neelavva had acquired title to the property under a partition, once she acquired title under partition the said property becomes her individual property and the sons and daughters of Neelavva would not have any right to succeed to the same, interstate as claimed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.48 of 2021. Neelavva, having acquired the title, was entitled to deal
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR with the said property in any manner she deemed fit, which she did during her lifetime by executing a gift deed in favour of the petitioner. 8.4. In the suit in O.S.No.48 of 2021, what has been sought for is only a partition to the extent of 1/10th of undivided interest in the said property. The gift deed which has been executed by Neelavva in favour of the petitioner-herein has not been challenged. 8.5. Thus, the gift deed continues to hold fort, whether the said gift deed has been executed behind the back of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.48 of 2021 is immaterial inasmuch as the plaintiff would not have had any right in the said property, which exclusively belonged to Neelavva.
8.6. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that Neelavva was the exclusive owner of the property, and her children cannot claim to
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR have any right of intestate succession in respect of the said property.
9. Answer to point No.2; Whether the order of injunction granted by a trial Court and as modified by the First Appellate Court is sustainable?
9.1. In view of my answer No.1 above, this aspect has not been considered either by the trial Court or the First Appellate Court; both the Courts have presumed and assumed that the property is a joint family property entitling the children of Neelavva to have an equal share in the said property. There being ten (10) children, the trial Court has held that each of them would be entitled to a 1/10th share, which is contrary to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
9.2. Since Neelavva, acquired property in her individual right, she would be the exclusive owner of the said property, she having dealt
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR with the said property during her lifetime, the question of succession, being opened interstate or otherwise, would not arise. 9.3. The contention of learned counsel for respondent that despite the gift deed having been executed in favour of the petitioner, Neelavva continued to seek for enhancement of compensation and an award had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the acquisition proceedings under the National Highway Authority Act, would not support the case of the plaintiffs, inasmuch as the continuation of the proceedings for enhancement of compensation would have to be continued in the name of the person who was shown as owner in the notification which had been published any action taken by her for the benefit of the petitioner-herein which will not confer any
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR right, title or interest on the plaintiffs in O.S.No.48 of 2021.
9.4. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2 by holding that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not considered Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act resulting in the impugned orders being passed and as such are unsustainable.
10. Answer to point No.3: What Order? 10.1. In view of my answers to point No.1 and 2, the orders passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, being contrary to law, I pass the following;
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Shiggaon in O.S. No.48 of 2021 on IA No.13 of 2021 is set aside.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10183 WP No. 102998 of 2024 HC-KAR iii. Consequently, the order passed by the Principal District and Session Judge, Haveri in MA No.9/2022 dated 12.01.2024 is set aside.
iv. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to the disbursal of the entire amount of compensation. In the event of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.48 of 2021 succeeding the suit/they would be entitled to proceed against the petitioner.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34