Karnataka High Court
Lalitavva vs Smt.Sushilamma on 19 January, 2022
Bench: R Natarajpresided Byrnj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.104789 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. LALITAVVA W/O. NINGAPPA HULIKERI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BEHIND HUBLI VIDYA RESIDENCE
KODI HOSTEL, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SMT. MANGALAVVA W/O. RAJASHEKARGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ. RANEBENNUR.
3. VISHWANATH RAJASHEKARGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ. RANEBENNUR.
4. MALLAMMA S/O. RAJASHEKARGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ. RANEBENNUR.
5. SUNITA D/O. RAJASHEKARGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ. RANEBENNUR.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
:2:
AND:
1. SMT. SUSHILAMMA W/O. RAJASHEKARGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. LINGRAJ S/O. RAJASHEKARGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN B. CHATRAD, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RANEBENNUR IN
R.A. NO.59/2014 ON I.A. NO.2 AND 3 AND FURTHER DISMISS
THE APPLICATION NO.2 AND 3 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed by the appellants in
Regular Appeal No.59/2014 pending trial before the Court of
the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur,
challenging the order dated 31.03.2016, by which an
application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein under
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short
"CPC"), was allowed and they were permitted to come on
record.
2. A suit in Original Suit No.170/2009 was filed
before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and I Additional
J.M.F.C. Court, Ranebennur, for partition and separate
possession of 1/3rd share of plaintiffs in the suit schedule
properties. The said suit was decreed in part in terms of
the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2014.
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, the defendants/petitioners herein in the suit filed
Regular Appeal No.59/2014.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule
10 (2) of CPC to implead them as respondent Nos.4 and 5
in Regular Appeal No.59/2014. They claimed that Shri.
Rajshekargouda Patil, the father of the defendant Nos.3 to 5
had married the respondent No.1 herein but neglected her
and that respondent No.2 was the son of Rajshekhargouda
Patil from the respondent No.1. They contended that they
too are interested in the share that may be allotted to
Rajshekhargouda Patil and that they too were entitled to a
share in the suit properties.
5. The first appellate Court allowed the application
and permitted the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to come
on record as the respondentNos.4 and 5 in R.A.
No.59/2014.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the
petitioners have filed this petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were bound to obtain a decree
of declaration of their relationship with Rajshekhargouda
Patil from the competent Court and that they cannot
intervene in the first appeal that was filed by the
defendants/petitioners.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that first appeal was a
continuation of the Original Suit and therefore, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to come on record and demand
their share in the suit schedule properties.
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for
the respondents, the first appeal was continuation of the
Original Suit and therefore, the first appellate Court was
justified in permitting respondent Nos.1 and 2 to come on
record as the legal representatives of Rajshekhargouda
Patil. However, the respondents are bound to establish
their relationship with Rajashekhargouda Patil in R.A.
No.59/2014, for which purpose, the appellate Court may
itself frame issues and record evidence or refer the same to
the Trail Court as provided under Order XLI Rule 25 of CPC.
10. There is no illegality in the order passed by the
first appellate Court and hence the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
