- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3323 WP No. 201525 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.201525 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. 1A. M/S. G.N.KAKHANDAKI, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS; GURULINGAPPA S/O NINGAPPA KAKHANDAKI, AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O CTS NO.1134, PLOT NO.70, WARD NO.3, APMC YARD, INDI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. 1B. BASAVARAJ S/O MALLIKARJUN KAKHANDAKI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O CTS NO.1134, PLOT NO.70, WARD NO.3, APMC YARD, INDI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKARGOUDA S/O SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KHB COLONY, PLOT NO.147, SOLAPUR ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 103. Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3323 WP No. 201525 of 2025 2. SIDDAPPA S/O NINGAPPA KAHANDAKI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O VEGETABLE MERCHANT, APMC YARD, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587 103. 3. KAMALABAI W/O MALLIKARJUN KAKHANDAKI, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O NEAR ANAND HOSPITAL, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. 4. MANGALA W/O BASAVARAJ GUDALAMANI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK, R/O NEAR TUNGALBAI HOSPITAL, PAGA GALLI, JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHARWADKAR T. SUBHODH & SMT. RAJASHRI S. DHARWADKAR, ADVS. FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN A NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO MODIFY THE ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-F DATED 29.04.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.242/2018 I.E., DIRECTION TO THE TRIAL COURT TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN REGARD TO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED DEFENDANT NO.5 SINCE THE PLAINTIFF NO.1B AND DEFENDANT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED DEFENDANT NO.5 IN TERMS OF SEC. 15(2)(A) OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3323 WP No. 201525 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in O.S.No.242/2018 on an enquiry held under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.242/2018 and they have filed original suit with a prayer to partition the property between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 5. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the family members of plaintiff No.1B. 3. Defendant No.1/respondent No.1 is the contesting defendant in the original suit, who claims that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He contends that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 5 have no right, title or interest over the same. He further submits - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3323 WP No. 201525 of 2025 that in this regard, he has filed O.S.No.29/2018 for evicting the petitioner-Firm herein, who according to him is the tenant. 4. During the course of the proceedings, defendant No.5 died. Defendant No.3 is said to be her mother, defendant No.4 is said to be her sister and plaintiff No.1B is said to be her brother. The plaintiffs/ petitioners in the original suit filed a memo requesting the Trial Court to treat plaintiff No.1B, defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 as legal heirs of deceased defendant No.5. The Trial Court made an enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC and concluded that defendant No.3 being the mother of deceased defendant No.5 will have to be treated as the legal representative of the deceased defendant No.5 as per Section 15(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’), as no legal heirs as contemplated in Section 15(1)(a) and (b) of the Act are present. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3323 WP No. 201525 of 2025 5. The case of the petitioner is that a portion of the property was inherited by defendant No.5 from her late father and hence, as per Section 15(2)(a) of the Act, plaintiff No.1B, defendant Nos.3 and 4 are required to be treated as legal representatives of defendant No.5 and the Trial Court erred in not doing so. 6. Perusal of the records show that there are different versions put up by the parties in respect of ownership of the property concerned. 7. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court in its order has observed the following: “As there is serious dispute about the right of the defendant No.5, the claim of the defendant No.3 as Class-I legal heir to succeed to property of the defendant No.5 is subject to out come of the final result of this suit. However, the defendant No.3 being the mother of defendant No.5 she is only Class-I legal heir and she represents her estate. Thus, she is the only legal representative of the defendant No.5. Hence, the plaintiff is directed to show the defendant No.3 as the legal representative - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3323 WP No. 201525 of 2025 of the defendant No.5 and amend the plaint cause title accordingly and file amended plaint. Hence, I answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative.” and has passed the following order: “ORDER The defendant No.3 is declared as legal representative of the defendant No.5. The plaintiff is directed to show the defendant No.3 as legal representative of defendant No.5 and amend the plaint cause title accordingly and file amended plaint.” 8. I do not see any error in the reasoning and the order passed by the Trial Court. However, it is hereby clarified that if the petitioners herein are able to establish their case and were to prove that father of plaintiff No.1B was 50% owner of the property concerned and defendant No.5 inherited a portion of the property upon the death of her father and she died as a spinster, then in that event, petitioner No.1B may have a right over the property concerned which has to be decided by the Trial Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3323 WP No. 201525 of 2025 9. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and the parties shall co-operate for quick disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE LG,VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 Ct:SI