In the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

1 WP No.63008/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5 th DAY OF JUNE 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA WRIT PETITION No.63008/2012 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN SHRUTI W/O. AMMANNA HEGADE AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TALUK: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. ... PETITIONER (By Sri.G B NAIK & Smt.P G NAIK, ADVS.) AND 1. SIDAGOUDA DHANAGONDA PATIL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TALUK: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SATTEGOUDA DHANAGONDA PATIL AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TALUK: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. TANGEWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA PUJARI AGE: 70 YEARS, 2 WP No.63008/2012 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TALUK: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. PARAWWA W/O. LAKKAPPA NIDAGUNDI AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. LOLASUR VILLAGE, TALUK: GOKAK NOW AT BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TALUK: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. 5. ANAND RAYAPPA PUJARI AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MINOR, REP. BY HIS MOTHER R-3 TANGEWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA PUJARI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TALUK: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. 6. SANTOSH RAYAPPA PUJARI AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MINOR, REP. BY HIS MOTHER R-3 TANGEWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA PUJARI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TALUK: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.RAJASHEKAR BURJI, ADV. FOR R1 & 2, Sri.K.H.BAGI, ADV. FOR R-3 TO 6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.142/2010 (BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAIBAG) 3 WP No.63008/2012 DATED:13/12/2010 BY THE LOK-ADALAT, RAIBAG, WHICH IS MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Petitioner who was Plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.142/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at RaiBag, is Before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 13.12.2010 at Annexure ‘E’ made as per the compromise entered Before the Lok Adalath sitting at RaiBag. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner suBmits that at the time of filing suit as well as when the compromise was entered Before the Lok Adalath, the petitioner was a minor. He further suBmits that according to the compromise entered in the suit, no share was allotted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and therefore, the impugned Judgment and Decree made on the Basis of compromise made Before the Lok Adalath, may Be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 who are Defendants 2 and 3 suBmits that there is no merit 4 WP No.63008/2012 in the petition. He also suBmits that when the compromise petition was signed By the petitioner, she did not plead Before the Lok Adalath that she was a minor, But after the death of her father who is Defendant No.1, the petitioner, with an intention to harass and exploit the Respondents 1 and 2, she has filed the petition. He also suBmits that out of seven properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, Respondents 1 and 2 have purchased Item No.1, viz., land Bearing Survey No.54/A/3 measuring 9 acres 10 guntas with foot karaB 0.27 acres. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents 3 to 6 suBmits that there is no merit in the writ petition. 5. It is pertinent to mention that the present petitioner and her two minor Brothers, paternal grand-mother and paternal aunt filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the present petitioner’s father and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are purchasers of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. According to the cause-title, the petitioner was married to one Ammanna Hegade. The suit was filed after her marriage. As per the compromise entered, 5 WP No.63008/2012 the agricultural lands as against Serial Nos.2, 3 and 4 have Been given to minor children, viz., the Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, who are none other than the minor Brothers of the present petitioner/plaintiff. The present petition has Been filed after the death of petitioner’s father. I see no good ground to entertain the petition. 6. In the result, Petition fails and the same is hereBy rejected. Sd/- JUDGE Bnv*.

Load more