Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkanagouda S/O Rudragowda ... vs Sri Kalakappa S/O Shrishailappa Palled on 21 February, 2025
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB
WA No. 100531 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100531 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENKANAGOUDA
S/O RUDRAGOWDA DANAPPA GOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
OCC. VOLUNTARY RETIRED GOVT. SERVANT,
HARAPPANAHALLI 583131
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. SMT. JYOTHI
D/O VENKATANAGOWDA DANAPPA GOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION. LAWYER,
HARAPPANAHALLI 583131
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. SMT. MAHESHWARI
D/O VENKATANAGOWDA DANAPPA GOUDAR
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High
OCC. DOCTOR, HARAPANAHALLI 583131,
Court of
Karnataka, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT.
Dharwad
Bench
4. SRI KALAPUTRA
S/O VENKANAGOWDA DANAPPA GOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
HARAPPANAHALLI 583131,
APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE GAVE GPA TO
1ST APPELLANT TO REPRESENT ON BEHALF THEM,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT JOYISAKERE
NEAR SHANKARMUTT, HARAPPANAHALLI,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB
WA No. 100531 of 2024
REPRESENTED BY SRI VENKANAGOUDA
S/O RUDRAGOUDA DANAPPAGOUDAR
PARTY-IN-PERSON
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VENKANAGOUDA R. GOUDAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
SRI KALAKAPPA
S/O SHRISHAILAPPA PALLED
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
R/O. JAKKALI 582111,
RON TALUK,
DISTRICT. GADAG.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
WHICH IS DEVOID THE MERITS OF THE CASE, DATED
10.09.2024, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUSTICE IN
W.P.NO.103573/2024 (GM-CPC) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT &
ETC.,
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB
WA No. 100531 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is as against the writ
Court's order dated 10.09.2024 in W.P. No.103573/2024.
The writ Court, by this impugned order dated 10.09.2024
has refused to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India with the order dated 12.02.2024 in O.S.
No.170/2022 on the file of the Civil Judge [Sr. Dn.] Court,
Ron [for short, 'the civil Court']. The civil Court by the order
dated 12.02.2024 has allowed the application filed by the
respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.
No.170/2022, for clubbing of this suit with another suit filed
by the appellants in O.S. No.47/2022.
This Court must observe that if the appellants have
filed their suit in O.S. No.47/2022 for declaration that the
Will and Testament dated 10.05.2011 as null and void, the
respondent has filed his suit in O.S. No.170/2022 for
declaration that he is entitled for ownership of 1/4th share in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB
the suit schedule properties as a legatee under the aforesaid
Will and Testament. The civil Court, in allowing the
application [I.A. No.6], has opined that the Issues in both the
suits are one and the same. The writ Court, while
considering the merits of the civil Court's opinion under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has opined that the
Issues are 'interrelated and interconnected' and therefore it
does not find any error by the civil Court in allowing the
application.
This Court has heard the first appellant, who has
appeared in-person for himself and for the other appellants,
on the question of maintainability of the appeal in the light
of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Tamanna and
others vs. Miss Renuka and others1. In fact, the first
appellant is permitted to file synopsis of his arguments to
answer the question: if the petition in W.P. No.103573/2024
is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would this
intra-court appeal be maintainable. The first appellant has
filed his synopsis, and adverting to the aforesaid decision by
1 ILR 2009 Kar 1207
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB
the Full Bench, but he is unable to justify his contention
that this intra-Court appeal will be maintainable in the light
of the question referred and answered by the Full Bench in
the aforesaid decision, which are as under.
Question:
Whether an appeal from the Judgment, decree or
order passed by the Single Judge in exercise of the
power conferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, which arises against any
order made deciding an issue, passed by any
Court subordinate to the High Court, in the course
of a suit or other proceeding not finally disposed of,
and is governed by Section 8 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961 and attracted by Section 115
and Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure,
shall lie to and be heard by a Bench consisting of
two other Judges of the High Court under Section 4
of the said Act in view of Sections 9(xii) and 10(iv-a)
of the said Act read with Rules 2(1), 26 and 39 of
the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 of the Karnataka
High Court, and Article 11(sa) to Schedule II to the
Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,
1958?
Answer:
As a result no appeal would lie under Section 4 of
the Karnataka High Court Act against the order of
the Single Judge passed in exercise of the power
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3633-DB
conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India in the matter arising against an order made
deciding an issue, passed by the Court subordinate
to the High Court, in the course of a suit or other
proceedings not finally disposed of, which is
attracted by Section 115 CPC and is governed
under Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act;
and in all others matters which are not attracted by
Section 115 CPC and not governed under Section 8
of the Act, an appeal would lie under Section 10(iv-
a) against the order passed under Section 9(xii) of
the Karnataka High Court Act read with Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India and Rules 2(1),
26 and 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules as well as
Article 11(sa) to Schedule II to the Karnataka Court
Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.
In the light of the afore, this intra-court appeal is
dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
RSH, CT:VP
