IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED TRIS THE 2711! my 0:2 NOVEMBER' '
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUs'rr%CEi:LPflj.i{u1§/IAE
WRIT PETITION
EEIMQEB;
LAXMAWWA ~ - -.
D/O SHIVAPPA MAKANNAVAR, V
AGE 47 YEARS, occ: AGR!L.,~». _ A
we DHAVALESHWAR. ; %
TQ. GOKAI{,DIM.£3ELGAU¢Mi1_V ~ 4_ " "~~~'..PE'r1'r1opmre
(BY SR1 Drnésu l.§.'s3€v. 1';
ARE;
1.
‘1’IM’RPPA,._ ‘ _ _ ”
s/6 _sHIvAPr§A EWEKANNAVAR,
AC;-:E: so YEARé3,_VOCC: ,AGRiL,
I-{[0 £}!:IA’JALESHWiuR,
” ” frfQ. G0xA_1{,._p1s*r. BELGAUM.
2.3′ B:§1iM.é;P?A,u
‘- sic) sfiivzméa MAKANNAVAR,
mas: 5*£~YE:ARS, occ: AGRIL,
R/0 UHAVALESHWAR,
TQ. GOKAK, D191’. BELGAUM
.f1*AmEwwA,
V ‘we KUSHNAPPA MAKAN-NAVAI2,
‘AGE: 47 YEARS, ooc: AGRIL,
QR/0 DHAVALESHWAR,
‘I’Q. G-OKAK, DIST. BELGAUM.
” 4. HANAMANT,
s/o KUSHNAPPA MAKANNAVAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, ooc: AGRIL,
R/O DHAVALESHWAR, ,
‘I*Q. GOKAK, 9131’. BELGAUM. §,\/
LAXMAN,
S1/0 KUSI-ENAPPA MAKANNAVAR,
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC1: fiGl3€iL,
RfO BHAVALESHWAR,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. SELGAEJM.
_Ul
6. MAHADEV, _
5,10 xtjsamppa MA§iANNAV§aR, :
AGE: 27 YEARS, occ: AC-(REL,
R/O DHAVALESHWAR,
TQ. GGKAK, ms? BELGAUM’.
*2′. BASAPPA SIDDAPPA AWARAiL>E,”=.. ‘
AGE 45 YEARS, ace; AGRIL, ‘
R/Q DHAvA1,EsHwA;e,’~.._ ,
‘TQ <3G§<A1,£gUAr».e«:. AA RSSPGNDENTS
THIS WRiT.FETITEC)N ES §?1§,E{}..E§.r§IDE’,F?;XR’1’ICLES 2:26 AND
22′? OF’ THE 2C()Fi{.E3′?ITU?1’IC3i>N”‘OF’_{N’DiA…..PR?AYiNG TOQUASH
ORDER ANNEx’aI4R1:%¢¢:.”s P£3’S_ED..BY”C.i’»’IL ..JUDGE{SR.D§\¥} GOKAK
ON I.A.N0.6 m’. _.:3′,’;1/es. IN–1{3.S’.I3§Q;73’f2GO6, ANIID ETC.
W13.25.13:?jP.§}T:T:t;:>;§i”‘-c::::sA1:v’G ON FOR FRELEMENARY
E~££iAI%§N€3.’1’E~I.IS 1>1.r~.,'{‘,v5:_’é:I_Ev«::;g:sLm=1* MADE THE Fomowiwcg:
F_*éRDER
V B
has flied this writ petition chaiiengng
by the trial Ceurt dismissing his
V .’ ap1$Ii€a’ii§ri {G implead the _pL1r<:has€r of the joint faxnilgg
V' " Vpxhpertiés from othczr COp8I'C€I}€2'S.
2. The suit is one for pa1*l;iti0:1 and separate
possession. Befendants I to (it) have filed statement: are:
contesting the matter. The}: contend that the piaimiifl’
has no right Over the suit echedule properties as she is
the 1:I1arI’ied dauglater.
3. The tria} coax»: has framed iseuegi e{§1;.%: ‘-
parties have adduced evidence. 5-_E’h’e~ease iseeiil ‘<jeWr1;.fc:j:i V
arguments arid at that stage
the piaiiatifi' to implead 1;If1;e'-v.;:;§:i:LIfc11ziee1'. Cf V
The said applicationie..;'eje(:ie'¢iA. on the
gromzd that the saxne 'end of the trial
only with ar;..iI:tei_:ttio:j1 ti} fche ;3feeeedi11gs. The
imte13ft.i.ea:1– 'of. application is to make the
matter e}L1_:n.:3y 'a1§d: the matter alive imdefilaitelj,-~*.
'I'I:'ic2'}1Tf€3fV'C'}i'f3V " "ha,§___".dismissed the Said appiiCe.tie11.
' izhe same, the plaintiff is before this court.
" .. "V ' The suit, is (me for partition. The petitioner
" 1:m,m: clenied the 'title of the defendants over the suit
ecfrledule properties. If they have alienated the property,
the persons who have purchased the p1*opert§; wouid get
3. valid title. Even if the suit is decreed, purchasers
weuld get :3. share in the property. It is necessary only
at the tune of fina} decree proceedings to
imgleading applicant. Therefore, it is sfii1__.%§§€fl_’
petitioner to £316 an appiication tomi;nplea¢’i”:;11é’_V{)i;::?cha::;¢r” =
in the final deems proceedi11’gs,;jas–5 th§?”~}§i’?1CH8._f3f3)f’S
presence is not necessary ;i_1*.:a=V.suit’fr>r par{‘i{‘£’iC$n4… the V ‘
Gilly question which ;__tl:1e c’:;1§d g <3 whethe1*
the suit schedule pféfiéfiiég fa;11i,1y properties
or not and wf1:1e§her:"t}'1e;; right over the
same? is no i:1f1m:1ity
in tl1e_.:*d§§i*~V7g:$1a§:~:2._.e:i 1r§.a1_ riourt.
Acwéeljfiinélgi,’ i$.:éismissed. Sd/_;
Iudgg
Iiflivz A