IN THE HIGH comarr or KARRATAKA c1Reu;1$_':§:eréefi"A. V arr DHARWAI) Dated this the 25"" day of fiQyembe1'; * BEFQRE} « 1' ' THE I-:on*nLn:. MR.»gr:1§T1¢mi. Writ Petition No. 3o69§ Between: J . 'A ' Ganapi ' Wife ofKxishna_}3Ttiat_ V .4 _ V_ 1 Age about6O " 1' _V Occupation gfieiieeh ' ' Residing at N.ave€3:?'4%;01:a.' ¢_ ' H0n.nava;r~ _ Petitioner " _ Advocate) A1:1d:.--.. . E}3ixesh..Lfi1geSfi"3hat " » _V £iged.ab<5ut 45 years V(Dee1;patiQIij..Agicult11re ~. ' -._I2esi:1ing~«.;.:::' Santur A 'I'ai;,1ka'--}é~iumata 1.
2 Mahabaleshwar Lingesh Bhat
” r figeé about 38 years
. _ “_Oecupation Agrieuiitlxre
‘Residing at Santur
Taluka Kumta
3 Renuka wife of Govind Bhat
Aged about 30 years
Occupation Household work
Residing at C] 0 Govind Vishnu Bhat
Taluka Honnavar i?esp{§i1d§:11te._ ” ‘
(By Sri Anant R. Iri”: egd¢’. fO;’ ‘1 ‘A * ‘
M/s I-iegde Neeralagi 8r.R_PatiI ”
This Writ Petition is fi1cdAV1:1;{(ier’a;1ic1.cés«fi26 {find 227 of
the Consfitution of Inciia,”V~._praying ‘to quash thé érder dated
25-3-2003 in o.s. No.106’/G4 –;_;;asseci—-3s3;’Lhe Additional Civil
Judge (Jr.{)n.), Kumta Vick; An;:1e§ture~_€3;. ” V
This Wrii: éffsaiifiozzfi Ejifiiers this day, the
Court made ~
The 3:3,; 51,’ » % 1);-gas; preferred this Wlit petition
cha]1en.gi11§’tt_V5§e~.oIV;iie;:;Apaafiéd by the trial Court dismissing his
‘~ ‘appiiiratifin fi1efi”*’:1:1de1″ Section 3.0 of CPC for staying of
pending disposal of RSA 7274/O2 on the file of
mis&com§%%AA»&
Om: Mahabaicshwar Bhat had two ciaughters by
Bhagirathi Bai and Ganapi and a 501:: by game
“”‘Venkataraman. Bhagirathi Bafs husband is one Lingesh 81131.
The}? had twca sons and a daughter. She filed a suit against her
Lg//’
brother ano sister for partition and separate possessio;$’i1er
iegititnate share in the property beionging to her *.
numbered as O.S.No.74/85. This suitwas
274/01 filed against the said ;udgm£=;m 1123;:
dismissed, against which RsAi%%f2:’}gV_o2 is fiied grinding: *
consideration.
3. The _pej:itionef’* filed appiication in
§i’.A.274/O1 fie» which is the
subject_n1_atte1:_of said application came
to be appeal, one of the questions
which is Court is whether rejection of
the apinlieaiion ‘is Eroper or not. The pzesem suit
. is by the son of Bhag1ra’ thi Bai against his
~.b:i”Qt§:’:’.:’.: for paxfifion and separate yossession of his
belonging to his father Lingesh Bhat.
*-Two pzopzrfies which are the subject matter are claimed by
A “: “‘e\s his father’s property. in the 9.31:} suit, the peeltioner
filed an application to implead herself and she was
V Wortlezed to be itnpleadeé. After getting izmpleaded, she flied an
H/
application. under Section 10 of CPC for stay of
pmceedings in this case pesdirig disposal of
the ground that two items of the prC§pEi’i5’« Vi ‘
matter of iitigation is also the stibjecf’ of
said RSA which is flied at anterir:fi*”~poiniV’of tixx;ev~Vto”:.fLhe..pfesent . L’
suit. The uial Court <1'is®'s_'seé'x.._ the fisaic} Vaiypficafion.
Aggrieved by the said oxtlef, _s.%:he' 'before this Court.
4. fl”‘}.ze igsiter sf SS is theproperty
beiongiiigto his two daughters and a
son. which are the subject matter of
this proceedings i%§{ei;e.’.11oi{“‘;n’e1uded in the said suit. It is oniy
_ in App7eai,VVfsr tiie first time, the petitioner sought to get
added. The said agipiication is rejected. New
Appeal. Therefore it is clear that two
itefiis sv:f’th:z:’:13reperty which is the subject, matter of the suit is
mat tlis.-subject mattsr of earlier pmceedings is ().S.No.74[85.
ii btzcause the appiication was filed to include these
= sroperties, in law, it makes no difiemnce. In the present suit,
the p1aimifi’ is ciaiinirig the said property as property belonging