Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt Jyothi D/O. Mallikarjuna vs Mallikarjuna S/O. Late Nagappa
2025 Latest Caselaw 1921 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1921 Kant
Judgement Date : 1 August, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Smt Jyothi D/O. Mallikarjuna vs Mallikarjuna S/O. Late Nagappa on 1 August, 2025

Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:9540
                                                     WP No. 104668 of 2025


                   HC-KAR



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                      DHARWAD BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ


                          WRIT PETITION NO.104668 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SMT. JYOTHI D/O. MALLIKARJUNA,
                        AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
                        R/O. MAKANADAKU VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TQ.,
                        VIJAYANAGAR DIST.-583126.

                   2.   SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O. MALLIKARJUNA,
                        OCC. HOUSEWIFE, AGE: 35 YEARS,
                        R/O. MAKANADAKU VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TQ.,
                        VIJAYANAGAR DIST. 583126.
                                                                ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI. BASAVANA GOUD T., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI          1.   MALLIKARJUNA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA,
Location: High          AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED TEACHER,
Court of
Karnataka,              OBALAPURA VILLAGE,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad                 PRESENTLY R/O. THAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                        KUDLIGI TQ. VIJAYANAGARA DIST.-583218.

                   2.   SHIVAPRASHAD S/O. MALLIKARJUNA,
                        AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O. MAKANADAKU VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TQ.,
                        VIJAYANAGAR DIST.-583126.

                   3.   SMT. DEVERAMMA W/O. LATE MANJUNATHA,
                        D/O. MALLIKARJUNA, AGE: 53 YEARS,
                        R/O. MAKANADAKU VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TQ.,
                        VIJAYANAGAR DIST.-583126.
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:9540
                                        WP No. 104668 of 2025


HC-KAR



4.   SMT. NINGAMMA W/O. VASANTHA D/O.
     MALLIKARJUNA,
     AGE: 47 YEARS, R/O. ABBENAHALLI VILLAGE,
     CHALLAKERE TALUK,
     CHITRADURGA DIST.-577536.

5.   G. THIPPESWAMY S/O. LATE THIPPANNA,
     AGE: 91 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
     R/O. THAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TQ.,
     VIJAYANAGAR DIST.-583218.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

     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, BY QUASHING
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26-07-2023, PASSED ON
IA NO. XI, IN F.D.P. NO.03/2014 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY
THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI AND PASS
SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS OR ANY
OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS
AS DEEMS FIT TO THIS HON'BLE COURT, WHICH WOULD MEET
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                           ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, by quashing the Judgment and Order dated 26-07-2023, passed on IA No. XI, in F.D.P. No. 03/2014 (Annexure-E) passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC Kudligi.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9540

HC-KAR

ii. Pass such other and further order or orders or any other relief or reliefs in favour of the petitioners as deems fit to this Hon'ble Court, which would meet the ends of justice and equity.

2. A suit for partition having been filed in O.S.No.68 of

2003, the same came to be decreed, in pursuance of

which, FDP No.03 of 2014 has been filed, wherein an

application under Order XX Rule 18(2) of the Code of

Civil Procedure has been filed to include one of the

properties on the ground that there is a discussion in

the decree, but the property was not allotted to the

petitioners. The said application came to be rejected

by the FDP Court on the ground that the FDP Court

cannot go behind the preliminary decree and would

only have to implement the preliminary decree.

3. I do not find any infirmity with the said order. If the

petitioners were aggrieved by any portion of the

decree passed in O.S.No.68 of 2003, and if it was for

correction, they could have moved an application

before the same court and/or filed an appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9540

HC-KAR

Neither having been done, the property not allotted

to the petitioners cannot be sought to be brought on

record in the FDP proceedings.

4. The petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

gab Ct:pa

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter