High Court Karnataka High Court

Baswanthraya S/O Honnappagouda … vs Sangangouda S/O Dyamangouda … on 9 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Baswanthraya S/O Honnappagouda … vs Sangangouda S/O Dyamangouda … on 9 March, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
-1-

IN THE mar-I comm' or      -

cmcurr BENCH arr GULBARGA.   %

DATED THIS THE gm pgybp:.,mc:=;x;,%%%%g.:»;a9"T 

BEF$REV -- A A} V
THE HOITBLE MR.J13sTiG.:Ef RAM 1\mHAN prgmpv
wpzrr PETITIOS'"~-No..§ié£6S§,(_2§08' ((}1\}4--tf:pc)

BETWEEN: Q T V

1,     
3/ 01 HG:§€f€APP3GGiJADA vrami '
Acmss  * 
:vocc;'A;3R;c¥,;L?Uag. % M

2. H0N«NAPPG>QuDA " 
S/e%,BAswANTHR,A'%;AGoUDA METI
_ AGE :23 YEARS   '
_; "mic: AGRICULTURE

'V " «. 'K3. éiiazéhmeouna

'  _ S;.'_G r3ASwANTHRAYA(}oUDA MET!
 A A-GE-:.;;; 3 I~YEARS
. " occ; 'AGRICULTURE
 A.,;;;L Rio MUDNOOR~K 'I'Q.,
..sHpRAPUR.
 ..PE'I'ITI()¥'~IERS

'   {BY SRMMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADV.)

   

V' SHANTA BA!

SINCE DECEASEE) BY HER ALLEGED LR:$

M

J'



..2..

1. SANGANGGUBA
S10 DYAMANGOUDA PATIL
AGE 40 YEARS  « ..   ~ ;_. 
occ; AGRICULTURE 83 LEGAL PRACYFIQNERTVV' '=- 
R/O KUDRI, SALAWADGL  V. _  .

TQ. MEDDEBIHAL    :
DIST: BIJAPUR 585 301. '

(BY SRLVEERESH B.PAT¥L; A [)3[_.)

mzs WRYI' PE'I'i__'I'ION iS..F'_H,-ED._vUNDER.ARTICLES 226
AND 22? OF THE c0za:s'm"UTr'0:9j ()7? INDiA FRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER 1)A:rEuL1:3'.9.2oc3'PAssED ON THE IA
Nmx IN as NO 319/200418'? THE..;'L.EARNED ca (SD),
SHORAQWJR, A'l'vANX~§_"';;' '-  1 . "

MVTH;S'~aa{12i*:?;;pIm5I":c§1s:'cemiéee on FOR PRLJ-IEARING
(B-GROUP)' X. .j~'1"HI€-3 .1:m', Ema COURT MADE rag

FOLL{_)W_I§'€G: * V. __ = 
* M »  Oman

" _{ ' "The (icfé:I1§i§I1ts  by the order dt, 15.9.2008 of

 me  fifudge (Sndn), Shorapur, in 0.s. No.319/2004

  by the p1ai3:1t;ifi' for amendment. of the

pl"aint,..§'a1tr¢;;" presented this writ pctjnion.

AA  2. 011 the death of the plaintifl' in a Suit for partitien

 €:he' iczgal represezntatives having come on record filed EA-9

' V unde:r Order 6 Rule 17 CFC to amend the piaint to add a

matemcnbt crf fact of a subsequent event viz, the piaintififs
a

 

'  _



-3"

execution of a Will during the pendency Qf'

bequeathialg her share in the joint family pmpeftjes    

of the legal representative. That apefieaiiee  

fihng statement. of objecfiens  "sf; 

respondent on the premise fihe iegal' xejpgrevéefitafifve of'

the deceased piaintifl “but. have to
maintain a separate seiii and claim a share
so bequeathefd ‘ emendment will
change the ‘ action and hence,

cieserves 1:,’
3;’ regard to the fact that on the

deagh ‘cf.the.Voiig:ifiel the right to sue survives upon

” hez’ xeptesentefive and by aflowing the amendment to

§i1e_ V %fi§-include a statement of fact 0*’ the legal

being a legafee under the Will of the plainfifl”,

ixnjxeszgaeeif ef the testatrix’s shave in the joint; family property,

V.”V’,AA}:’:’eI€3t5t}3;at the amendment does not change the character of

«A suit, muchless its nature, disenfitiing the applicant to

the relief. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the legal

Ieptesentative of the plaintifi” that a decree be drawn in
E’.

5

.4-

respect of his share bequeathed under the

in the Suit is not amended. ‘I’hu§,..w_}1at is ‘

rcrquircd to deizermm e is, Whether:’~§;he::’€;n::i:gifia1′

entitled to 3 share in the joint”family’pfbgscn3%:’;3:;;1««.ifVs,b, :0

what extent ? In that View of ‘hit be said
that the trial court 51 allowing the
applicafion filed by the i:hr~: plaintiffi

4. Ir; théwvoxfier impuged is
not <'§:g1~ave: injustice to the

petitioners "

The writ peiztign ‘is’; aécofiiingly rejected.

%%%%% Sdii
Fudge