(aj _S.N;MA.\{jARPA
_(b) ""'S.w;._'RARA'MESHWARAPRA
SQRMALLESHARPA
~ .j'{d) S.N.PANCHAKSHARAPPA
RESEDING AT KUDUR,
HONNUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
..PETITJ:C§N 'V'
[By Sri Ravmdranath.P'V, Advocate} E'
1' SMT MALLAMMA
W/O MALLARRA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
2. BASAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY-HIS L._R_'s'-.._
(a) B.G.vEERABHADRAR.RA_
S/O LATE BASAPPA
(b) S.G.JAYARA_f'
S/O LATE;_BA;iA-PPA _'
(c) B. G. BAi§SAV:AR.AjA'PP.A."'::.'j.
S/QML_ATE..VB'AS:.A_RRA * "
(d) B.}73.RL_JDFA{ATF"F?;9\._V'T'
S/OBASAERA
3. NAM}LA.TN.DAAPPA A
fr3;'O _HANU£V.lAP'PA
v»~ET§NC'E E)ECEAf3«E.E?...B'{ HIS L.R'S
" V _ S;'O_"'L_A'|*F[ N_A_N3L}NDAPPA
'- ._AGE'D 'A:3_c;~;J"T' 57 YEARS
S/D [.jATE NANJUNDAPPA
' A' AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
(e)
(f)
(9)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(C)
<dj)*T
A (e)
A AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S.N.SHE§ASA\/ARAJAPPA
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS T.
S.§\l.SURESHAPPA
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 x{E'A_:é_\s
MALLAPPA S/O HANUM_AP.b'A...7' _
SINCE DECEASED BY_.HI_S_L.R's._ "
SHANMUKH'A'PEA
S/O LA.TvE'*MA'!.:L.A.PP.A; ..
AGED 'V.'ABC.V}:|L-'Jfit' 4S'--YEA'R§3_ :
OH'A'N'DRAfPPA'A::7'}V '
S',-{O LATE'MA~LLAPPATL_ « .
AGED A8OUT'4'3.YEARS_
SHARADAMMA~_ A
, D/Q LATEv-MA'LLAPTF'A
'~',,AG_ED ABOUT D4_3N_§(EARS
_V INVD':2.AMOMA__
' D/.'O._LAT'E. MA LLAPPA
'._:AGE D;AEsO'UT 39 YEARS
KA..Ti:Es.'xSAPPA
S/O'j.LATE MALLAPPA
..5MANJAPPA
S/O LATE MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
(ALL ARE RESIDING AT BIKKONAHALLE
VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI,
SHEMOGA TALUK)
GMBASAPPA
S/O PATEL MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
G.M.PA£_Aé<SH/APPA
S/O G.D.MA£_LAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
(ALL ARE RESIDING AT 31KKONA"HAL_L:Ai'
VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI, '
SHIMOGA TALUK)
K.L.ESWAR
S/O KLINGAPPA GOWOA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, _
RESIDING AT 2"" CROSS, ;
RAVINDRA NAGAR, " 'E
NELASIRI, SHIMOGA V
vEERANGOw{:A,v.PATIz; _ --.
S/O VE E_ R,A13SA.;j\/_A.'.NA3O__wD.A PA .
AGEO A%3OL_1T;S2 \'rEARS;;j-.
RESIDING./W ':AI_REirE'RO'R MA.I_'\: ROAD,
HIRE'K'ERLiVR:,POS:T;-- *
DISTRICT HA."JE_R"I. "
S.T.CHA'NORAR_T5A«.'S-JO"MARPA
AGED ABQUT 41-_YEARS,,--7
RESIOING AT BIKKONAHALLI
..:<3QM M-.ANALO" P-O_S___'_|_'__,& ,
"vDIS',¥7F?IC'T.&SHiMOGA
E_S'.T.rv@ALLESH'APPA S/O TIMAPPA
._ AGED AvBO'ujT"32 YEARS,
A VRESIDINO AT ESIKKONAHALLI
'T<.OM._MAAuALu POST
DISTRICT SHIMOGA
A 'S,T.MOHAw KUMAR
= ._S/'O TIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIQING AT BIKKONAHALL1
KOMMANALU POST,
DISTRICT SHIMOGA.
..RESPONDENTS
{By Sri M.R.RajagODa§, Advocate for R3,]
5′
THIS LRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.6.91, PASSED IN M.;A.,NO
S1/86, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT’.3UDGE_,
SHIMOGA, DISMISSING Ti-éE APPEAL FILED BY THE A..RPELLA’NT»
FOR CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
TAHSILDAR, SHIMOGA IN vO.A.c 20/83~84. « ” ” R. ‘E
IN ‘WP 24443/ 1991
BETWEEN:
1. GOWDA BASAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY
LEGAL REPRESEi\ITAT.Iu\/ES,A..”W =
(a) B.G.vEERABHADRAERA ,
AGED ABOUTS1 YEARS,’ A
(b) B.G.JAYAE’PA’,’j;fl.’ _
AGED ABDU7 f_5_3Y EARS
(c) (B.G.) S’;vB.{BA5S5AVARA}Ai5PAHA
AGE’D”FABOUT YEARS” ”
(B) BIS».RUDR/’aI5PA:’,”‘AA.VA A
AGEDABOUT-,3o~–.YEARS:
ALL SONS QVF’G.OW.DAA.E;ASAPPA
A V’ “‘vA–.GOiw.DA– NANJUNDAJDRA,
3′; ._ “-S’._c3O’w§DA_ MALLAPRA,
I SHAMUKAPPA
–.[j.–(b”)-I A CHANDRARPA
4](c) KAVIBASAPPA
W , _AG_ED AE}O~-‘.J_T 70 YEARS,
V ‘AGED.ASC}UT 68 YEARS,
“‘««SIN.:_¢Ea:~. “DECEASED BY LR’S
“AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
AGED AGOUT 43 YEARS
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
(G) MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
6
ALL THE SONS OF OECEASEO 3*”
PETITIONER RESIDING AT
BIKKANAHALLI,
SHIMOGA TALUK
PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 SONS OF
HANUMAPPA
4. GOWDA G.M.E3ASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, _
SON OF PATEL MALLAPPA
5. G.M.PALAKSHAPPA_
AGEO ABOUT 27 Y.E’A~RS 1. I
SON OF SR: G.O.MA«T._:.’A_Pr4A ;
ALL AGRICUJ__”?URISTS,v._”A. W A
RESIDENTS-OF-._BIK§KAf\éA_}fi:AL, ‘
SHIMOGA’TAf;iL.~UK. . = I ‘ ”
_ PETITIONERS
I _ -j_ [By Srfi ‘M.,’EPUCiraiah§, Advocate]
1. SMT,n?%ALLA.MA.”
AGED.ABOUT*60″Y1£ARS,
WIFE OE. MALLA_PPA_,
. S2. “PATSEL ESwA’RA9pA;
A AGEE) ABOUT 71 YEARS,
,SQN”OF..SRI_MAHADEVAPPA,
._ ‘*’.._aOTEi”.’AGRi’OULTU RISTS,
‘ RESIOETATS OF BIKKANAHALLI
‘~SHi.MO’GA TALUK
1′ .. AOOITIONAL DI-STRICT JUDGE
“SHIMOGA
V74. TAHSILDAR,
SHIMOGA
RESPONDENTS
[By Sn’ M.R.Raja Gopal, Aévocate for R1
Sri H.HanUmantharayappa, HCGP for R3 & R4]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
gggm
On summoning of the said
r_eto.ro’£;_.:”i«ta.wa’SE._n’otEced that one Kadalaiah was the originai
son’>En?iaw became the Barawardar Patei and an order
effect was made on 24.3.1938. Mahadevappa is
father of the original petitioner in LRRP M04993/1991.
u:.”Thereafter, the originai petitioner made an appiication for
7
FoR RECORDS IN vo AC 20/83-84 ON THE FILE oF_THE
TAHSILDAR, SHIMDGA AND THOSE IN MA 51 AND 127 oF–‘1–986
oN THE FILE 09 THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND14…Qt-,tAS.H
ANNEXURES-A AND B DATED 29.6.9: AND 2G.2.86H_BEA’P,1’NG-«
NO.127/86 AND 20/83-84 IN so FAR AS THEY’.;MAr<.E;-«.TF:E___'*_
REGRANTS IN FOVOUR oF R2 AND R3. " 4 *
THIS LRRP AND WRIT RETITIo:s:**Ce.MéINt: Oi\i"iFVC1RVVVFI.'i$irAL'v.. it
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE TREAJFoLt,TowIN_<3';«..-.__ j
Respondent No.1 Smt.Ma'l'i'a}hm'a W]'oV§.if'Ia.i-iaopiaiirnade
an appiication on 19.12.':I*9_83 véihérnoga for
re–grant of half share in 3, 4 and 10
of i3ikkonahaiI§~~ Mtge, in terms of The
Mysore Viiiajfige .itAet*¥19o8. Objections were
filed toiithiey Eswarappa contending
that since there was an earlier
proceeding i5ef_ore_t;-he'*.ASSistant Commissioner, Shimoga,
Ea'raeiir§}are:a.r'Rate: of Bikkonahaiii viilage. After his death,
re–grant of the iands. The Tahsiidar by taking into
consideration the entries made in RR»5 and RR–6 that the
Q?!"
-“iirtspetii’ii.t3’n6.ig in we~iio.24443/1991. The appellants
V”veo*nte’nd:”–th’at”t.he–..order of the Tahsildar is erroneous and
its/..,__’2favour only. It is contended that the original petitioner in
“iil;’P..R:l?i>””i\IO.4993/1991 is not a member of the original famiiy
…_”V””ofV’i<adalaiah and therefore he is not entitled for re–grant of
fliany portion of the iands and consequently at! the lands
8
properties have since been divided between the various
sharers, re–granted the said lands as foliows;
i) Srnt.Mailappa W/0.!’/iailappa — 0-8-0 anna-:5?’
ii)G.M.E3asappa h-__Q-féi-0 a’nn’as:.’_’: . .
iii)Basappa, Nanjundappa Mallappay’–,
iv)B.M.Palal<shappa – ($44-24 aniia's{."v…_
v)Eswarappa bin Mahadevappa 0.74-O..an.nEl_s.
(The original petitioner.in~.E,’RRPdi\io’.~1§39V3iii.3,99I) ” ”
2. Aggrieved by the ?o.rd–er§,re–§]ran_tlng the lands to
the above mentioned p’ersofns,”..arn_ was flied in
MA Nq;’5i’/19éV:5 orAl’.c__j’l’n’a’l’ petitioner in LRRP
No.4993″/1991’erict’f’jen”e;5p.eei in MA No.127/1986 has
been Vfiled by the[des.pe’ndants of Hunumappa vlz., the
the should have been re–granted in their
should have been granted to the writ petitioners alone. It
is further contended that the said Kadalaiah had four :21:
9
by name Basaiah, Kariyanna, Shivanna and Maitappa.
Among them, Shivanna and Maiiappa died issueEe~ss_f~and
the eldest son Basaiah had one son by name .
had in turn had two sons Maiiappa and Han’t}r’n”ap’paV”an’dV
daughter Nanjavva. Hanumappag d’ted5 i’ssu~el’ess”:’a.nt::;_r
Nanjavva was married to V’V_l1f5u_ri”naVp’pai.
Kadlappa had three sons lylialiappa
and Puradappa. The eiidestg had eight
sons. The 4″‘ appeilant’Vin.lyliA.V’Ngot,_1é.7_,i1’l§:8o, i.e., Gowda
G.M.BasappE_14_tis:, and the other
appellants”Va’r§-iitihe of the original
Barwardiar __ :1 K’a..d’la._ppa.; The appellant in
MA. No.S”1=,!gi9i86 “is noi..t:heV”4member of the original family
V and “ileingi a» ..strangVe:r to the family is not entitled for
in a_in’y._viands.
._ th”e’V..appeals were Considered by the common
V –Vjudg’men”t:A’a’r’.’d by the impugned order both the appeals
“‘V.wvyerwe..rejected confirming the order of the re~grant made
.’by–the:Tahsildar. Hence the present petitions.
4. It is contended by Sri.P.V.Ravindranath, learned
counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the
Q?/6°’
committed. an e”r’ro_r granting the lands in terms of the
He contends that the said Kadalaiah does
_namely the petitioners in LRRP No.4993/1991 as well as
correspondents therein and the respondents in
Vi/P.,VN’o;24443/1991 would not be entitled to any share.
11
the conclusion that since the lands have alreadytieen
partitioned and the sharers are in respective posses:s–io”n:o,f4
the said lands in terms of RR.5 and RI”-2.6,
made in terms of the possession of__the_partlielret.1:/;?!.e’nce’y}he’.,.A
submits that the re-grant is violatiye
Act. He further contends tha’t__Von_’com’i’-nag “the
Karnataka Village Offices “Act,..’1″9E:-.1, ‘the was
holding the village office”‘arid.h’e_n§e.r is entitled for
re-gra nt.
7. SriV.M’:RiJd1raiah e’p;a:eAar:tn:gVVfolr the petitioners in WP
No.24443/1.9-9in’ltio’ntie’ndsVth-at’ none of the other sharers
are entitleddlforya’ny””‘syhar:e_.»t.and hence the Tahsildar has
not b’elyongi:”‘to___thleforiginal family and therefore his branch
8. Sri.M.R.Rajagopa|, learned counsel for the
respondent NO.1 by relying on a number of citations
Q?/V”
14
more than what he would get in the event of his success in
this petition and the subsequent suit for partition.
The respondents submit that they ”
impugned orders and hence no interife’ren’ce. is_.caEie_d Vfohin’-VA
these petitions.
A petition that is futiielneied notViib-et}co’nsid§erVed by
the court on merits. deem it
unnecessary to go intoftsié=.Content’i’o.ri’§~L.i/..i;;’vr§ed on merits,
for the would not be
beneficiai aniyiiimanner whatsoever.
Hencelji the impugned orders
do not caiiviforiiinte~rferen:rje-i.
aforesaid reasons, both petitions are
i~d,is«posedibffi,
Sd/~
Rims