Karnataka High Court
Shri Madhukar S/O Vishnu Desai vs Shri Satish Alleged Adoptive on 31 July, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10805
WP No. 104516 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 104516 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI MADHUKAR S/O. VISHNU DESAI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEEPAK GALLI, OLD GANDHI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590 016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHWIN C. HUBLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI SATISH ALLEGED ADOPTIVE
S/O. KASTURI MUDAKANNAVAR,
BEFORE ADOPTION
SATISH S/O. SHRIMANDAR MUDAKANNAVAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. H.NO.1093, ANANTSHAYAN GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KARANTAKA
DHARWAD BELAGAVI-590001.
BENCH
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI-590001, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
5. THE COMMISSIONER,
CORPORATION OF CITY OF BELAGAVI,
SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10805
WP No. 104516 of 2024
6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS, CLUB ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590001.
7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
SAMPIGE ROAD, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001, BELAGAVI(URBAN).
8. THE HEAD MASTER,
GOVERNMENT KANNADA PRIMARY SCHOOL NO.6,
KONWAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
9. THE HEAD MASTER,
B.K. MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,
STATION ROAD, NEAR BSNL OFFICE,
CAMP, BELAGAVI-590001.
10. THE PRINCIPAL,
BHARATESH I.T.C. COLLEGE,
BASAVAN KUDACHI,
TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VITHAL S. TELI, ADV. FOR C/R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
05/07/2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BELAGAVI, IN O.S. NO.1335/2023, REJECTING THE I.A. NO.
IV, FILED U/O. I RULE 10 (2) R/W. SEC.151 OF CPC, COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE E AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10805
WP No. 104516 of 2024
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
1. Heard the petitioner's counsel and also the
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
2. In this writ petition, prayer is sought to quash
the order dated 05.07.2024 rejecting the application i.e.
I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner filed under Order I Rule
10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC vide Annexure-A.
3. The contention of the petitioner before the Trial
Court while seeking for his impleadment is that he is a
bonafide purchaser of an agricultural land bearing
R.S.No.1225/1 vide Sale Deed dated 27.02.2023 for a
valuable consideration under Annexure-B and also revenue
entries are also changed in respect of the said property in
his name and he has been in actual possession and
enjoyment of the property. It is also his contention that
the said land has been bequeathed to his vendor,
Miss.Kasturi D/o Payappa Mudakannavar by virtue of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10805
registered Will dated 27.12.1986, duly executed by the
testator Payappa Mudakannavar. The petitioner submits
that his vendor Miss.Kasturi is spinster and thus is
issueless and Miss.Kasturi D/o Payappa Mudakannavar,
being unmarried, desired to follow the path of religious
practices. For the said purpose, she decided to sell the
aforesaid land belonging to her and deriving from selling
the agriculture land towards charity and religious
endowments.
4. The respondent No.1 is the nephew of
Miss.Kasturi. The respondent No.1 happens to be the late
brother of Miss.Kasturi D/o Payappa Mudakannavar.
Respondent No.1 with a malafide and sinister motivation
hatched a conspiracy with certain other persons to gulp up
the said land so as to deprive the valuable property rights
of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 induced and
instigated the vendor, Miss.Kasturi D/o Payappa
Mudakannavar to file a false and frivolous suit against the
petitioner for impeaching the Sale Deed in respect of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10805
land bearing R.S.No.1225/1 of Belagavi sold to the
petitioner and also Miss.Kasturi D/o Payappa
Mudakannavar with that end in view, instituted a false,
frivolous and a fraudulent suit in O.S.No.481/2023 for
declaration and injunction at the behest of the respondent
No.1. The copy of the plaint is also produced.
5. It is also the contention that the document of
adoption deed dated 14.07.2023 is created subsequent to
the selling of the property and hence made an application
before the Trial Court stating that if any judgment and
decree is passed based on the adoption deed changing the
name, it affects the right of the petitioner.
6. The Trial Court having considered the
application and also considering the objection statement
filed by the respondent, has rejected the application
erroneously and the same is required to be set aside.
7. The counsel would vehemently contend that if
name has been changed as sought in the suit, it affects his
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10805
right and this attempt is made only creating the document
of adoption dated 14.07.2023 that too as an afterthought
intended to throw out the petitioner's right, title and
interest in respect of the property which he had
purchased. If he is impleaded in the case, it will not cause
any injustice to the other side and hence it requires
quashing of the same.
8. Per contra the counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 brought to notice of this Court the
contents of the plaint in O.S.No.481/2023 and also the
relief is sought in this earlier suit in O.S.No.481/2023 and
counsel also brought to notice of this Court the suit filed
by the respondent in O.S.No.1335/2023, wherein relief is
sought only for the change of name consequent upon the
adoption deed dated 14.07.2023 and the same will not
affect the rights of the respondent and Trial Court also
having taken note of the prayer sought in
O.S.No.481/2023, rightly comes to the conclusion that this
petitioner is not necessary party to decide the relief sought
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10805
in O.S.No.1335/2023, wherein only sought for the relief of
change of his name based on the adoption deed and
rightly passed the order in rejecting the same. Counsel
also submits that the Trial Court, while passing an order,
made an observation that he can agitate his rights in the
said suit.
9. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, this Court
has to take note of the averments of the plaint in
O.S.No.1335/2023 wherein an application is filed to
implead him as party to the proceedings by filing an
application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151
of CPC. The prayer is only with regard to change of name
consequent upon the execution of adoption deed and not
sought for any other relief in respect of the Sale Deed
executed in favor of the petitioner herein and the same is
not the issue.
10. When such being the case, in a case for seeking
only the relief of change of name, the Trial Court taken
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10805
note of the said fact that there is no need of petitioner's
presence to decide the case and already suit was filed in
O.S.No.481/2023 and also an observation is made that he
can agitate the same in the said suit.
11. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also
brought to notice of this Court that respondents No.1 to 4
have been made as party and reply to the said
submission, counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that
the name of the respondent has entered in the Corporation
and hence they are made as party to the proceedings and
also the relief is sought in respect of change of name in
the school entries and not in respect of right of immovable
property, and hence the apprehension of the petitioner
that by changing his name based on the adoption deed
may seek for the relief in an appropriate forum, the said
apprehension cannot be accepted when there was a Sale
Deed in favor of the petitioner vide Sale Deed dated
09.02.2023 i.e. prior to the adoption deed and hence I do
not find any ground to set aside the order of the Trial
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10805
Court and the presence of the petitioner in a suit filed by
the respondent No.1 that too for a change of name based
on the adoption deed is not necessary and he is not a
necessary party and hence I do not find any merit in the
writ petition to quash the impugned order.
12. In view of the discussion made above, I pass
the following order:
ORDER
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SH
CT-MCK
