Karnataka High Court
Veeresh S/O. Chandrashekharappa ... vs Smt Neelavva W/O Neelappa Kalagudi on 11 July, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644
CRP No. 100143 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100143 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
VEERESH
S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA KALAGUDI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BEVUR, TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. NEELAPPA KALAGUDI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SECTOR NO.52, PLOT NO.29E,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT,
Digitally signed
by SAROJA DIST: BAGALKOT.
HANGARAKI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
2. MURAGESH S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA
Dharwad KALAGUDI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT.
CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA KALAGUDI,
DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
3. PARVATEWWA W/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA
KALAGUDI,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST. BAGALKOT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644
CRP No. 100143 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. SURESH S/O. CHANDRASEHKHARAPPA KALAGUDI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST. BAGALKOT.
5. BHAGIRATHI W/O. BASAVARAJ MALAGONDA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST. BAGALKOT.
6. SACHIN S/O. SURESH KALAGUDI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT.
7. MRUTYUNJAYA S/O. SURESH KALAGUDI
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: BEVUR, TQ & DIST. BAGALKOT.
R6 AND R7 ARE MINORS
REP. BY FATHER R4)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. ANAND D. BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R4 IS SERVED;
R6 AND R7 ARE MINORS R/BY R4)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER
47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 ON I.A.NO.15 IN
O.S.NO.41/2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BAGALKOT VIDE ANNEXURE-M
AND THEREBY REJECT THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY
DEFENDANT NO.8(A), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644
CRP No. 100143 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
1. This petition is filed by defendant No.3, being
aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2024 passed in
O.S.No.41/2015 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Bagalkot, whereby I.A.No.15 filed by the petitioner herein,
seeking rejection of the counter claim made by respondent
No.1 / defendant No.8(a), was rejected.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that one
Neelappa, who was originally impleaded in the suit as
defendant No.8 had filed his written statement denying any
partition of the suit properties. However, upon the demise of
said Neelappa, respondent No.1 herein who is his wife was
brought on record as his legal representative and arrayed as
defendant No.8(a). She filed her written statement as well as
the counter claim contending that there was a partition already
taken place and had sought for declaration of her title in
respect of certain items of the suit properties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the
provisions of Order XXII Rule 4(2) of the CPC, submits that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644
HC-KAR
respondent No.1 / defendant No.8(a), having come on record
as the legal representative of deceased defendant No.8 in the
suit, cannot take a stand contrary to the one taken by the
deceased defendant No.8. He places reliance on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Bal Kishan v. Om Parkash1,
and the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of
Shyam Sundar Bazaz Vs. Sanwarmal Jalan and Others2,
to contend that though the legal representative of the deceased
party is entitled to make any defence appropriate to their
character as such, they cannot take a stand contrary to what
has already been taken by the deceased. He therefore submits
that if such a legal representative intends to raise a defence
contrary to what has already been taken, he must do so by
filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, seeking to
implead themselves in their individual capacity. That the Trial
Court has not adverted to this legal aspect of the matter while
rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, seeks
for allowing of the present petition.
AIR 1986 SC 1952
AIR 2005 Jhar 109
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644
HC-KAR
4. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 / defendant No.8(a) submits that the present petition may
be disposed of, reserving liberty to the respondent No.1/
defendant No.8(a) to take appropriate steps, including but not
limited to filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC,
seeking to implead herself as a defendant in her individual
capacity and take such further steps as may be permissible in
law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has no objection for the same.
6. In that view of the matter, the present petition is
allowed.
7. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner
seeking rejection of the counter claim is allowed. The counter
claim so made by the respondent No.1/defendant No.8(a) is
rejected.
8. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 / defendant
No.8(a) to pursue such remedies as may be available under
law, including filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8644
HC-KAR
CPC in the present suit, and to take such defences as may be
permissible in law.
9. All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
VNP/CT-ASC
