IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17"' DAY or JUNE, 2008
BEFORE
me HoN's:.E MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUG0PALA.V(§~§t§\I:§([:-4E5»: L
wan' PETITION NO.2033/2f.fd§'(GM§£',PC) _"
BETWEEN:
1 DEVENDRA s/0 MALLAPPA"'!ELBOO
AGE: 35 mans, occ AGRICULTURE
R/0 Mu<suL:4AcsAm\i»_ *
TQ.:CHITl'APUR n
DIST.: GULBARGAS85'-22?j."
2 VIJAVKUMARS/0 MAl_;L.APPR..YELBO0
AGE: 33 occssavxce
R/O MU_GULN)=eGAON'v-. %
TQ.: QHYTTAPUR'
% V'D1STI__:':~GEJLBARGA .5227.
3 '3AGAfNhIAT_H 'MALLAPPA veusoo
AGE'3 ,3«1 GCC SERVICE
RIO MUGULN-.§_f§AON
W VA _'rQ.: "c:HnTA.°uR
9:57.: GVULBARGA 585 227.
{jg 'NEAELAVMMA w/0 SAIBANNA
._-_A'G.E':' so YEARS, occ HOUSEHOLD °
'Rio YERGAL.
AT , 'TQ;: CHITTAPUR
% j;ms"r.: GULBARGA585221
5 SUNDERBAI W/O HANAMANTHA
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC HGUSEHGLD
RIO YERGAL,
TQ.: CHITTAPUR
DIST; GULBARGA 585 227.
6 PADMAVATI W/O CIEVENDRA , .
AGE: 23 YEARS, occ: HOUSEHDLQ
R/0 HIRE NANDU "
TQ.: CHITTAPUR * A
0151.: GULBARGA 585 227%.L%
7 SUMITRABAI w/o n V
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCCWHOUSEHOLBV
R/O HAGAR(§_UM._DAGI
TQ & 0157;': <:sf;u-LBARGAV §ss"'2:2")"; x
3 KUSUWWATI E3/G"MALLAPP.;A
AGE: ac; -Hou'sEHoLo
Rio MuGUL94A;;Aor»s.%%k
TQ.:V~AcHmAPua<% * %_
a1sT.';.._c;u%LBA.a<§A~ 5&5 227.
9 GANGAMMA w/o MALLAWA
- ,_A£3E3._L'321YEARS,,._.QCC HOUSEHOLD
'A _ R,'O"'AP{%Ei<'$UaLNAGAON
' "1?Q.:V'Vc:--ii'£TA.puR
-;D1S$.j:...GuVL$,ARGA 535 227.
PE-TITIONER5
& " SR1; Aéaeer KUMAR ossmmmne, ADV.)
' _1_ SAIBANNA S/O MAREPPA YELBO0
MAJOR OCC AGRICULTURE
RID MUGULNAGAON, TQ:CHITi'APUR
DIST: GULBARGA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
MAREPA S/O SAIBANNA YELB00, 45 YRS
occ AGRICULTURE, R/O MUGULNAGAON
TQ.: CHITTAPUR
DIST: GULBARGA 585 227.
MALLAPPA
s/0 SAIBANNA vemoo _
35 ms, occ AGRICUt=UF';E"---..
R/O MUGULNAGAON
TQ.: CHHTAPUR
0:51.: GULBARGA "$35 227. * %
s/o SAIBANNA vehaeofk. V ,
so was, QCtT..AGRI€SULU_§EE kk
R/O Muv3u_LN;aG;«or¢
TQ.: CtiIT'§_fi'~.PUR
DIST.: e.uL3Aaw. 585227.
DEVAEiM.K ""~. . j
w/0.sAsANm& . " K
40 YRS. VCC"'&-_i{1it.!'.?x'E::'f~;.!..">4l.D
ago MUGIJLNACSAON
,f:iQ.:F~.cHmA9ua
. -9151: 'GULBARGA 535 227.
I _ . MAI?-i.AMF2A" ',
. '----W/OHANAMANTHA
' ,3a YRS",-GCC HOUSEHOLD
F-2/C: BHANKUR, CHFITAPUR
TQ 'CHITTAPUR
~ =».{.DIST.: GULBARGA 535 227.
A INDIRABAI
W/0 NAMDEV
37 YRS, occ HOUSEHOLD
R/0 MUGULNAGAON,
TQ.: CHITTAPUR
DIST.: GULBARGA 585 227.
CHANDRAKALA
w/o SHIVASHARNAPPA
34 ms, occ HOUSEHOLD
R/0 GULBARG-A
MUNNAWWA
w/0 MAILARI _
26 YRS, occ HOUSEHOLD' %
R/O MUGULNAGAON
TQ.: CHITTAPUR
DIST.: GULBARGA saazztr.
SHASHIKALA ~
9/0 sA1aANNA Yemoe ii
24 'ms, occaoustsnoaosi - * %
R/O MuG1:LNA%;AcN'«
TQ.: CH3?1TA'PUR"--V..
oIsT,;%_%§5u;,s.o.e-gag 5a5_:2.2*:€.i%V«kk¥T :» A
we ssa1'aAm=sAwfELaaa_c:~
as ms,' QC: HQU$_EHQ?i.D
R/.9 Muc;uL:~:Ac;Aoae
TQ?-i C3HITTAF'E'-R. .....
_ msT.,%; G'U1_.BARGA 535 227.
= Xsxo 3As$As§NA vemoo
A.§§E:v_.59YEARS, acc AGRICULTURE
R/Q MUGULNAGAON
TQ.:-CHITTAPUR
AA 'Dl$T.: GULBARGA 585 227.
. 'MALLAPPA
s/0 FAKIRAPPA
AGE: 59 YEARS, occ HOUSEHOLD
R/C) MUGULNAGAON
TQ.: CHITTAPUR
DIST: GULBARGA 585 22?.
A. SMT. KAMLABAI
w/0 MALLAPPA :
AGE: 55 YEARS, occ HOUSEHOLD ' 1
R/0 MUGULNAGAON
TQ.: CHITTAPUR :
DIST.2 GULBARGA 585 __ u I V
_.-k§i;.aa.spoma~Ts°
(av sax. PRAMOD KULKAR§§i.--ADV§--.VE'C§EV..S!§i.-VEERESH 3
mm. FOR R1B~C, R1E-J.) _ 1
THIS wRI'r'r='€rI1mNaIs; Fi1.EE.'i"v%.IIs!i7JER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 __GF'»vTHlE..*_CON_3T:TI'UTIQN or-' INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE «JRDER DATED'*--14.1'»1.2OG6, PASSED ON
1A.No.14,.It~; %c1s.m*.>,172;'a2& 'avkkwms LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN} THE ceannso cow or WHICH
IS AT ANh'i§Xl5RE-F.. . -
This fiétitiun £o_rfi£Vha.:'£;n'for preliminary hearing 'B'
group, the Court made the féllowing:
....
;§_i’aisit’§ffs:v4’i’n.Q..s.172/2002 pending on the file cm:
i Judg e are the petitioners. Respondents
. the défghdants in the suet. An arder dated 14.11.2006
‘ -réj’e_s:ti>Ifi'{jA.«I.A.14, refusing to recast the issue, by raising an
V. —.. a:;idi_§’:%onai issue, has been quasti-arsed in this writ petition.
%
trial Court has held that, both parties wiil have to
leading evidence on issue No.1 -~ whether the T’ _
properties are joint family propertieszsi tend’ that the;fe–ije
prior partition. However, a peruse! iesiie._No.1T»’fifair:ed
26.9.2006, it could be seen thatfithere is’n_o”‘ieo?ue’v.reieed
with regard to the avermerit of _;:rio’rivr–:5§4ertit.iAon reieedvvvin the
Flieadlnas of the defendante.
8. It is, the written
staternent__ofv vd.ef>’esii’;dge_ht ~ been averred that,
himself add his money and purchased the
properties hemees in his brothers name and
‘ _vthereafi;;ei* they2q’ct._V_diluided entire properties purchased by
Tiaieeverments made in para 14 of the written
. sta’terr’:erit”rée.ds»A’.eo”‘foiiows:
‘”14. That the defendant 1 along with his
brother earned money and purchased the
= .. ‘properties in his name as well as in his brothers
_ name. Thereafter they” got divided entire
‘properties purchased by them tong hack taking
: into consideration of the fertility of the iends.
The plaintiff suppressing the said facts flied the
false suit.” \
X
10
From the plain reading of the said pleading, it is e*s~lo:epi~..vv
that, defendant No.1 has contendw that,
were his self acquired properties, purghased i_h”the:r_ssri”le’_’of
himself and his brothers and thatftherreefter,’
divided the entire properties. ‘\l_l1’i*:.l.le ahsv’~rerlhg”v:lssioe…f5ieV§1 %
framed in the suit, apart from c_est£s_g*..huroen«lofAproof on
the plaintiffs to prove suit schedule
properties are joint. family”prropertles,”At’he’:triel Court also
have to placethve of uidefendant $40.1 to
establlshlthle” hastelten in para 14 of the
written statement the suit schedule properties
are hisseif properties acquired in the name of
ills brothersand that there is prior partition.
the intehdment of the impugned order
passe§lhyvthe’3.§:rl;ai Court, in as much as, it has held that
parties will have to lead evidence. Since there is a
h sperJfl€”‘ApIea raised by defendant No.1 in the spit, it follows
V’ the plea putforth by him should be provw and
fgstablished by him. Without understanding the true
1/
3.1
impact and effect of the impugned order, the p¢=:t’if:i~c–‘ai:_eu:V9s;__:i’:$3,{: ‘
misconception have filed this writ petition.
9. In View of the clarification of t!’de*~
the effect of the impugned oI:aVi.§f’:*;..V1wr’i’t’V-;§§gt:tior§_ I§o;s”–‘to “inc
hoid as not tenable. Henge, I pVfa§§A’tV!1_e”f_oi!o.va}~éii1g’
” .
Writ petitiooA’§s_.dis:§1is§eIc§, clarification
of the com.