Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma W/O Mudbasappa Kodagali vs Tippanna S/O Kadappa Kodagali on 11 January, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:678
WP No. 106107 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 106107 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O MUDBASAPPA KODAGALI
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
2. SMT BASAMMA
W/O DODBASAPPA METI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE
BOTH R/O JUMALAPUR 583278
NOW R/AT SASVIHAL
TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL
...PETITIONERS
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
1. TIPPANNA
S/O KADAPPA KODAGALI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O MENDHAL-583279
TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST KOPPAL
2. MANJUNATH
S/O KADAPPA KODAGALI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O HANCHINAL-583277
TQ KUSHTAGI, DIST KOPPAL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:678
WP No. 106107 of 2023
3. BALAPPA
S/O KADAPPA KODAGALI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O JUMALAPUR-583278
TQ KUSHTAGI, DIST KOPPAL
4. SHARANAMMA
W/O KADAPPA KODAGALI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O JUMALAPUR-583278
TQ KUSHTAGI, DIST KOPPAL
5. GANGAPPA
S/O BALAPPA KODAGALI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O MATTUR-584125
TQ LINGASUR, DIST RAICHUR
6. DEVENDRAPPA
S/O BALAPPA KODAGALI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O JUMALAPUR-583278
TQ KUSHTAGI, DIST KOPPAL
7. SHARANAPPA
S/O BALAPPA KODAGALI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O JUMALAPUR-583278
TQ KUSHTAGI, DIST KOPPAL
8. ANSAMMA
W/O SHIVAYYA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O JUMALAPUR-583278
TQ KUSHTAGI, DIST KOPPAL
9. CHIDANANDGOUDA
S/O LAXMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:678
WP No. 106107 of 2023
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O MUSTIGERI 587206
TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT
10. BHIMAGOUDA
S/O DYAVANOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O MUSTIGERI 587206
TQ BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT
11. DODBASAPPA
S/O GURUPADAPPA GURIKAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O HONGADDI 583277
TQ KUSHTAGI, DIST KOPPAL
12. RADDEPPA
S/O GURUPADAPPA GURIKAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O HONGADDI 583277
TQ KUSHTAGI, DIST KOPPAL
13. SUGAPPA
S/O GURUPADAPPA GURIKAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O HONGADDI 583277
TQ KUSHTAGI, DIST KOPPAL
14. GANGAWWA W/O MUDKAPPA GUMGERI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICUTLURE
R/O JUMALAPUR 583278
TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL
15. NIRUPADI S/O MUDAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICUTLURE
R/O ULKIHAL 583229
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS D/W)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:678
WP No. 106107 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 10.07.2023 PASSED ON
I.A.NO. VII FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE BY THE PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS IN R.A. NO.
13/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KUSTAGI, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In view of the proposed order to be passed, notice to
respondents is dispensed with.
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ or order or direction to quash the order dated
10.07.2023 passed on I.A.No.VII filed under the
Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil
Procedure by the plaintiffs/petitioners in
R.A.No.13/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Kustagi, produced at Annexure-E.
b. Allow the I.A.No.VII filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1
and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the
plaintiffs/petitioners in R.A.No.13/2016 on the file
of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kustagi,
produced at Annexure-D.
c. Pass such other order or direction, this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:678
3. Suit in O.S.No.175/2007 had been filed by the
petitioners seeking for partition of the suit schedule
property. The said suit came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 08.03.2016 on the ground that the
petitioners have not established that the properties
are joint family properties and/or that the
petitioners/plaintiffs are in joint possession thereof.
4. A Regular Appeal in R.A.No.13/2016 having been
filed, the petitioners had filed an application under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for injunction
restraining respondents therein from alienating the
suit schedule properties. The said application came
to be dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2023.
Assailing the same, the petitioner is before this
Court.
5. The submission of Sri.Rajashekar Burji, learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the claim for
partition having been made if there is an alienation
of the properties, the interest of the petitioners
NC: 2024:KHC-D:678
would suffer and the same would also result in
multiplicity of proceedings requiring the purchasers,
if any, to be impleaded in the proceedings.
6. Having gone through the plaint, the judgment in the
suit as also the impugned order in R.A.No.13/2016, it
is clear that no application for injunction had been
filed in the suit when the suit was initially filed.
Thus, from the filing of the suit in the year 2007 till
disposal thereof on 08.03.2016, the plaintiffs had
chosen not to seek for injunction and subsequent
thereto only in the Regular Appeal, such an
application had been filed, the suit having been
dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs have not
established joint possession or that the properties
are joint family properties, I am of the considered
opinion that an injunction at this stage, nearly after
16 years of filing of the suit, would not be in the
interest of justice. The principles of lis pendens in
terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
NC: 2024:KHC-D:678
would always enure to the benefit of the parties in
the event of the petitioners succeeding in the Regular
Appeal.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PRS
