Karnataka High Court
Satyanarayana Jetty vs Smt. Venkatalakshmamma on 17 January, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
1
.IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.50800 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SATYANARAYANA JETTY
S/O SUBBA JETTY
MAJOR
R/O JETTIARAKERI, KUMSI TOWN
SHIVAMOGA TALUK
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS
1. SMT. GAYATHRIYAMMA,
W/O LATE STYANARAYANA JETTY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, HOUSHOLD.
2. K S MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
3. K S MURALI
S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
4. K S SURESH
S/O LATE STHYANARAYANA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
5. K S RAVISHA
S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
6. K S LOHITH
S/O LATE STHYANARAYANA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
2
7. K S KAVITHA
S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
JETTY STREET, KUMSI TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK - 577423
...PETITIONERS
(By SRI VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
D/O MANJA JETTY, MAJOR,
RESIDENT OF JETTIAREKERI,
KUMSI TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
BY HER GPA HOLDER
K V LAKSHMINARAYANA JATTAPPA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA JETTAPPA,
MAJOR, R/O KUMSI TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK - 577423
2. S. VENKATARAMANA JETTY
DEAD BY LRS, (EXPIRED ON 08-11-2016)
(a) GAYITRAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATARAMANA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O 3RD CROSS,
UJJANIPURA VILLAGE, PAPER TOWN,
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577301
(b) V SRINIVASA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPT.
JNNCE COLLEGE, R/O NAVILE,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY 577423
3
(c) SMT. SHOBA
W/O SHASHIKUMARA,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANA JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O OLD HOSPITAL ROAD, KUMSI POST,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577423
(d) SMT. SUDHA
W/O RAGHAVENDRA,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANA JETTY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O D NO.2608, 5TH CROSS,
HOSABANDIKERI, K R MOHALLA,
MYSORE 570001
3. S.VISHWANTHA JETTY
S/O SUBBA JETTY
MAJOR, R/O JETTIARAKERI
KUMSI TOWN,
SHIVAMOGAA TALUK-577 423.
4. BHAGYAMMA
D/O MANJA JETTY
MAJOR, R/O JETTIARAKERI,
KUMSI TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 423.
(RESPONDENT NO.4 DIED ON 01.12.2019
R1 IS THE ONLY HEIR)
5. LAKSHMAMMA DEVI
D/O MANJA JETTY,
MAJOR, C/O T S RAJA JETTY,
BEHIND VENKATARAMANAPPA GARADI,
TALUK OFFICE ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA,
BENGALURU DISTRICT -561 208.
(By SRI S V PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-5,
R2(A-D) & R3 ARE SERVED V/O DTD.14.12.2021)
... RESPONDENTS
4
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE COURT OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA IN
FDP NO.12/2001 INCLUDING THE ORDER
DTD.24.9.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.XIII ANNEXURE.G
FOR VERIFYING THE FACTUAL CORRECTNESS AND
LEGALITY OF THE SAME AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'ORDERS'
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners being aggrieved by the order on
I.A.No.XIII dated 24.09.2019 passed in FDP No.12/2001
by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.
Shivamogga have filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition
are that:
Respondent No.1 has filed a suit in
O.S.No.979/1989 for partition and separate possession
of the schedule property. The said suit came to be
decreed on 18.01.1995. Thereafter, respondent No.1
has filed FDP proceeding in FDP.12/2001. In the said
FDP proceeding, respondent No.1 filed an application to
permit the petitioners to amend the present final decree
proceedings by adding the properties as mentioned in
the application. In support of the said application,
respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit stating that there
was a zufani (oral) partition whereunder the agricultural
lands are divided between Sri Manjajetti and Subbajetti
and lands allotted to Sri Manjajetti and after his demise,
the said property is enjoyed by respondent No.1 and
defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the suit. In view of the facts
and circumstances, proposed properties were left out
from being included as a suit property in
O.S.No.979/1989. The said application was opposed by
the petitioners by filing objection. In the said objection,
it is contended that the partition suit was filed in the
year 1989 and suit came to be disposed of by drawing a
preliminary decree in the year 1999. Thereafter, the
appeal was filed in R.A.No.114/2007. The said appeal
came to be disposed of. It is contended that the
application filed by respondent No.1 is not maintainable.
Hence, prays for dismissal of the application. The trial
Court after hearing the parties allowed the application
vide order dated 24.09.2019. The petitioners being
aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.XIII filed this
writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and also the learned counsel for respondent
No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that respondent No.1 has filed a suit in the year 1989
after lapse of more than 21 years. Respondent No.1 has
filed an application seeking to include the proposed
properties. He further submits that the trial Court has
not assigned any reason while passing the impugned
order. He also further submits that the petitioners have
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court. The
trial Court without appreciating the said judgments has
proceeded to pass the impugned order. He further
submits that the trial Court has not applied his mind
while passing the impugned order. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for
respondent No.1 supports the impugned order.
6. Heard and perused the records and
considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties.
7. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit in the year
1989. The said suit came to be disposed of on
18.01.1995. Thereafter, the final decree proceedings
was filed in the year 2021 and respondent No.1 has filed
an application for amendment in the year 2016 i.e.,
after lapse of more than 15 years from the date of filing
of the final decree proceedings. The petitioners placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as this Court. The trial Court without considering
the judgment placed on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners has proceeded to pass the impugned order.
From the perusal of the impugned order, the trial Court
has not assigned any reasons while passing the
impugned order. The trial Court has not applied its mind
while passing the impugned order. Hence, on these
grounds, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Writ petition is allowed;
2. The impugned order dated 24.09.2019
passed on I.A.No.XIII in
FDP.No.12/2021 by the Court of
Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at
Shivamogga is set aside.
The trial Court is directed to reconsider I.A.No.XIII
and pass an appropriate order, after considering the
decisions relied upon by the parties in accordance with
law.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition,
I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and
disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ssb
