: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

WRIT PETITION NO.108896/2014 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

SMT.RUKMAVVA W/O VENKANNA KUDARI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: SAI NAGAR, MUDHOL TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.R.K.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SHRI HOLABASAPPA DUNDAPPA DADIBHAVI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: DADIBHAVI, TQ: DIST:

2. SHRI BABU BADDAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: DADIBHAVI, TQ: RAMDURG DIST: BELGAUM

3. SHRI BADDAPPA DARMAPPA LAMANI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: DADIBHAVI, TQ: RAMDURG DIST: BELGAUM : 2 :

4. SHRI SHIVAPPA KAREPPA DURGANNAVAR AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: PANCHAGAON, TQ: RAMDURG DIST: BELGAUM

5. SHRI RAMAPPA SHIVAPPA DURGANNAVAR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: PANCHAGAON, TQ: RAMDURG DIST: BELGAUM.

6. SHRI HANAMANTA SHIVAPPA DURGANNAVAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: PANCHAGAON, TQ: RAMDURG DIST: BELGAUM

7. SMT.RAMAVVA @ RUKMAVVA W/O BHIMAPPA TEGGI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: , POST: LOKAPUR TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT

8. SMT.LAKKAVVA D/O SHIVAPPA DURGANNAVAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: PANCHAGAON, TQ: RAMDURG DIST: BELGAUM

9. SMT.HANAMAVVA W/O SURESH BANOJI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: BANTANUR, TQ: RAMDURG DIST: BELGAUM

10. SMT.RENAVVA W/O SIDDAPPA TAGGI AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: , TQ: DIST: BELGAUM : 3 :

11. SHRI VITTAL SHIVAPPA DURGANNAVAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: PANCHAGAON, TQ: RAMDURG DIST: BELGAUM ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.R.M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 – SERVED; R4-R11 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.07.08.2014 MADE ON I.A.NO.III IN O.S.NO.286/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC RAMDURG VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court, assailing the order dated 07.08.2014, passed on I.A.No.III in

O.S.No.286/2012.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the said suit.

An application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 of CPC in I.A.No.III was filed in the said suit seeking that the proposed defendants 9 to 11 be impleaded to the : 4 :

suit. The Court below has dismissed the application. It is in that view, the plaintiff is before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

4. The proposed defendants 9 to 11 are stated to have purchased the properties bearing R.S.Nos.22/1,

22/2 and 97/1. The petitioner/plaintiff therefore, sought that the said purchasers be impleaded to the suit. The

Court below has however, rightly noticed that the said items of the properties have not been included in the suit for partition nor any material has been produced to show that the properties are ancestral properties liable to be included in the suit for the purpose of partition. In that view, it has arrived at the conclusion that when the properties is not the subject matter of the suit, merely because the persons have purchased the property, they cannot be included in the suit. The conclusion as reached by the Court below is justified in a circumstance when the said properties are not the subject matter of the suit. : 5 :

In that view, the order impugned does not call for interference.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

Vnp*