Karnataka High Court
Basanagouda Fakiragouda Patil vs Smt. Kamalawwa W/O Hanamanthgouda ... on 13 August, 2021
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
W.P. No. 108555/2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BASANAGOUDA FAKIRAGOUDA PATIL,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1. SMT. GIRIJAWWA W/O BASANGOUDA
PATIL @ SIDDANAGOUDAR, AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK & AGRICULTURE,
R/O VARUR, TQ: HUBBALLI.
2. SIDDANAGOUDAR S/O BASANGOUDA
PATIL @ SIDDANAGOUDAR, AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O VARUR, TQ: HUBBALLI.
3. MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA S/O BASANGOUDA
PATIL @ SIDDANAGOUDAR, AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & ADVOCATE,
R/O VARUR, TQ: HUBBALLI.
4. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O MAHANTESHGOUDA
PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O BAMMAPUR ONI, HUBBALLI.
5. SMT. ROOPA W/O NAGANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O BANDIWAD, TQ: HUBBALLI.
6. SMT. KAVYA W/O SHIVAKUMAR RONAD,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HEBBALLI, TQ: DHARWAD.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
2
SRI V.M. SHEELAVANT, SRI M.L. VANTI
AND VIJAYALAXMI M.N. ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. KAMALAWWA,
W/O HANAMANTHAGOUDA DANAPPAGOUDAR,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O SHEREWAD VILLAGE, TQ: HUBLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SMT. RATNAVVA,
W/O VENKAPPA NAGARHALLI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O SULLA VILLAGE, TQ: HUBLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
3. SMT. PARAVVA,
W/O KALAPPA SARKAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MORAB VILLAGE,
TQ: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A. CHAKALABBI AND
SRI S.B. DODDAGOUDRA, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI V.S. BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 31.07.2017 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUBBALLI IN O.S. NO. 330/2011 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2017 passed in O.S. No. 330/2011 whereby the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff and continued the counter claim set up by the respondents/ defendants.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff for the reliefs of declaration of title and permanent injunction by way of adverse possession following the decision of the apex Court in the case of Gurudwara Sahib Vs. Gram Panchayat Village, Sirthala & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 8244/2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23728 of 2012).
4
4. In this context, it is relevant to state that subsequently, a larger bench of the apex Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 has overruled the aforesaid earlier decision in Gurudwara Sahib case and has come to the conclusion that the suit for declaration and injunction putting forth plea and seeking relief of declaration based on adverse possession is maintainable.
5. Under the circumstances, in view of the decision of the larger Bench of the apex Court in Ravinder Kaur, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit following the decision in Gurudwara Sahib deserves to be set aside.
In the result, petition is hereby disposed of setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court and consequently suit of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 330/2011 is restored to the file of the trial Court. 5
All rival contentions on merits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
The trial Court is directed to adjudicate and dispose off both the suit and counter-claim in O.S. No. 330/2011 on merits in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to all parties.
SD JUDGE bvv