Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10477 (KAR)

SMT. SHANTABAI AND ORS v. SMT. SONABAI AND ORS

WP/201611/2022 · 2025-02-28

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 201611 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTABAI W/O MOTIRAM RATHOD, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK, R/O AKKALAKOT, TQ. AND DIST. SOLAPUR MAHARASHTRA-413216. 2. SMT. SHARUBAI W/O LALSING RATHOD, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC.H.H.WORK R/O MADHABHAVI TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101. 3. SHRI. REVU S/O PANDU LAMANI @ JADHAV, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE R/O MADHABHAVI TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101. 4. SMT. PARUBAI W/O DHANASING RATHOD, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC.H.H.WORK R/O GUNDUN TANDA ATHARGA TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101. 5. SHRI HARILAL S/O PANDU LAMANI @ JADHAV, Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O KEB LT, TQ. INDI TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 6. SHRI DESU S/O PANDU LAMANI @ JADHAV, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE R/O KEB LT TQ. INDI TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 7. SHRI SAKARAM S/O PANDU LAMANI @ JADHAV, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O KEB LT TQ. INDI TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 8. SUSHALABAI W/O SURESH RATHOD, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE R/O KEB LT TQ. INDI DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 9. RESHMA D/O PANDU LAMANI @ JADHAV, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK R/O KEB LT TQ. INDI DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SONABAI W/O PANDU LAMANI @ JADHAV, AGE. 81 YEARS, OCC.H.H.WORK R/O KEB LT, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 2. SHRI ASHOK S/O HANAMANTRAYA PATIL, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O MAHAVEER CIRCLE, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 3. SHRI SANTOSH S/O ASHOK PATIL, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O MAHAVEER CIRCLE TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 4. SMT. SHARADA W/O ASHOK PATIL, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK R/O MAHAVEER CIRCLE TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 5. SHRI SANJEEV S/O MAHAVEER DHANASHETTI, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 6. SHRI SACHIN S/O DHANASHETTI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 7. SHRI BABU S/O MUKTARSAB SOUDAGAR, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 8. BAHUBALI S/O RAVINDRANATH DHANASHETTI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 9. VARADARAJ S/O SUKAMAL DHANAPAL, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 10. ILAHI S/O KARIMSAB MASHALKAR, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 11. SHRIPATIGOUDA S/O CHANNABASAPPA BIRADAR, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 12. MASHAK S/O MAHIBUBSAB SOUDAGAR, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 13. FULASING S/O GUJARU JADHAV, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 14. VITHAL S/O THAVARU RATHOD, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 15. MALINGSHA S/O HUSAINBASHA MAKANDAR, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 16. MADINABI W/O HUSAIN ARAB, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK R/O INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. HUSENI S/O ABDUL LATIF ARAB SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 17. SMT. MADINA W/O HUSEINI ARAB, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK R/O NEAR HOSAMANI PETROL PUMP VIJAYAPURA ROAD INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 18. SIRIYAN D/O HUSEINI ARAB, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK R/O NEAR HOSAMANI PETROL PUMP VIJAYAPURA ROAD INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 19. SAMEER W/O HUSEINI ARAB, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O NEAR HOSAMANI PETROL PUMP VIJAYAPURA ROAD INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 20. TASLEEM D/O HUSEINI ARAB, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. H.H.WORK R/O NEAR HOSAMANI PETROL PUMP VIJAYAPURA ROAD INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 21. JAMEER S/O HUSEINI ARAB, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O NEAR HOSAMANI PETROL PUMP VIJAYAPURA ROAD INDI TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 22. SHRI SHRISHAIL S/O NAMADEV TAMBE, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. AMEERSAAB S/O CHANDSAB BAGAWAN SINCE DECEASED, BY LRS. 23. MASHAK S/O AMEERSAAB BAGAWAN, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. 24. RAJIYA W/O ISMIEL BAGAWAN, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586209. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4, R7, R10, R12, R16, R18, R19, R21, R23 AND R24; R-17 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE- E, VIZ., THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, INDI, ALLOWING SAID IA NO. XXVIII IN SAID OS NO. 26/2013. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The plaintiffs in OS No.26/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi are before this Court challenging an order dated 13.06.2022 by which an application (I.A.No.XVIII) filed by the defendants under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) of CPC was allowed. 2. The suit in OS No.26/2013 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs claimed that they and defendant No.1, constituted a joint family and that they were entitled to a share in the joint family properties. They alleged that defendant No.1 and her husband had sold the suit properties against the interest of the plaintiffs. Therefore, they sought for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties. 3. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 18 filed a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs. They contended that they had lawfully purchased plots formed in various survey numbers and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 that such purchases were binding upon the plaintiffs. The written statements filed by these defendants were also adopted by the other defendants. After the evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded, the case was set down for the evidence of the defendants. At this stage, defendant Nos. 2 to 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 18 filed an application (I.A.No.XVIII) under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) of CPC to place on record certain certified copies of sale deeds and mark them as secondary evidence. This application was contested by the plaintiffs. The Trial Court, by its order dated 13.06.2022, allowed the application on the ground that the defendants had produced photocopies of the documents namely sale deeds, mutation records and record of rights and that they merely intended to place on record the certified copies. The Trial Court held that the defendants were bound to prove the documents and it felt it appropriate to allow the application since the suit was filed in the year 2013. Consequently, the application was allowed in terms of the order dated 13.06.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs are before this Court. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 4. When the petition was listed for orders, defendant Nos. 2 to 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 18 submitted that the defendants are in possession of the originals of all the sale deeds and therefore, they would produce them before the Trial Court. However, he contended that the revenue documents that were already produced along with the application may be allowed to be produced by upholding the impugned order concerning the revenue documents. 5. Since the defendants have raised a specific contention that they have lawfully purchased certain sites formed in some of the suit properties and that those sale deeds are binding upon the plaintiffs, they are bound to produce the original sale deeds. Now that the learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that they are in possession of the original sale deeds, it is appropriate that they produce them before the Trial Court. However, insofar as the revenue documents that were produced along with the application are concerned, there can be no - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 impediment for their production. To that extent, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be upheld. 6. Consequently, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The application (I.A.No.XVIII) filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 18 under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) of CPC is allowed in part. iii. The said defendants are permitted to produce the revenue documents. However, the permission granted to them to produce the certified copies of the sale deeds is set aside. It is open for the defendants to produce the originals of the sale deeds and proceed in accordance with law. iv. Since the suit was filed in 2013, the Trial Court is requested to dispose off the suit as early as possible, as provided under the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1362 WP No. 201611 of 2022 Karnataka Case Flow and Sub-ordinate Court Rules, 2005. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE NJ LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8 CT:SI