Giridhar Jeevu Naik vs Tara Sitaram Naik
2021 Latest Caselaw 5102 Kant

                            -1-




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

                  MFA.NO.23866/2010 (PA)

BETWEEN

GIRIDHAR JEEVU NAIK,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O.MUDGA - AMADALLI, TQ: KARWAR
DIST:UTTAR KANNADA
                                                 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.PRASHANT S.HOSMANI, ADV.)

AND

1 . TARA SITARAM NAIK,
    AGE: MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
    R/O.MUDGA-AMADALLI, TQ:KARWAR.

2 . PREMA DUMMA NAIK,
    AGE:MAJOR, R/O.TODUR, TQ:KARWAR
                                               RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.RAGHAVENDRA RAO & SMT.V.VIDYA, ADVS. FOR R1 & R2)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 384 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION
ACT, 1925 PRAYING TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2010
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) KARWAR IN
P&SC.NO.4/2003 AND GRANT THE SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE IN
FAVOUR OF THE APPELALNT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   -2-




                            JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellant after addressing his

arguments for sometime filed a memo seeking disposal of the

appeal with liberty to the appellant to institute a comprehensive

suit before the trial court for adjudication of his rights.

2. It is noticed that the appellant filed P&SC No.4/2003

before the trial court seeking succession certificate on the basis

of the registered sale deed said to have been executed by his

mother Smt.Anandi Jeevu Naik. However, the said proceeding

was contested by the respondents. Neither the parties nor the

trial court thought it to register the P&SC as original suit.

However, the fact remains that both the parties have lead both

oral and documentary evidence. The appellant got examined

P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P34, whereas respondents

got examined R.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.R1 to R14.

Relying on these materials on record, the probate court

proceeded to dismiss the petition vide judgment dated

20.02.2010, which is called in question in the present appeal.

Now the appellant wants to withdraw the appeal with liberty to

institute a comprehensive suit before the trial court for

adjudication of his rights.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits no

objection for the appeal being permitted to be withdrawn. But

she submits that institution of fresh suit before the trial court

should be subject to permissibility under law.

4. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as

withdrawn. The appellant is at liberty to file the suit before the

trial court for adjudication of his rights, if the same is permissible

under law and if the appellant is advised to do so.

5. It is made clear that, if in case the appellant files a

comprehensive suit in respect of the subject matter of the P&SC

No.4/2003 in accordance with law, the observations made in the

impugned judgment shall not influence the trial court in any

manner, in deciding the suit.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MBS/-