- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11380 WP No. 109444 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 109444 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. GOVINDAPPA S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETD., EMPLOYEE OF NMDC, R/O. BHUJANGA NAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O. KRISHNAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1A. SMT. NAGAVENI W/O. ANJINAPPA AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER. 1B. SMT. VINAYKUMAR P. S/O. ANJINAPPA AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 1C. SRI. VIVEKA S/O. ANJINAPPA AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. ALL ARE R/O. 3RD WARD, BHUJANGANAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY 2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA SINCE DECEASED R1, R3 AND R4 ARE LRS OF R2 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11380 WP No. 109444 of 2016 3. SRI. HEMALATHA W/O. LATE PRABHAKAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. C/O. UMA MALLIKARJUNA NATARAJ COLONY, MAHAVEER ROAD, SINDHANOOR, TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: RAICHUR. 4. SRI. ANAND S/O. CHANDRAPPA, AGE: 28 YEARS, R/O. C/O. ANNAPPA, AGARNOOR, TQ: HUVINAHADAGLI, DIST: BELLARY. 5. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. GOVINDAPPA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BHUJANGANAGAR VILLAGE, …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV. FOR R1(A TO C); R1, R3 AND R4 ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R2; NOTICE TO R3 AND R5 SERVED; PETITION AGAINST R4-DISMISSED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2016, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI, ON I.A.NO.4 IN FDP NO.3/2011, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KUDLIGI TO CONSIDER EQUITIES, VALUATION AND BENEFICIAL PARTITION ETC., AT THE TIME AFFECTING AND ACCEPTING THE DIVISION OF PROPERTIES AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11380 WP No. 109444 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed seeking following reliefs: “a) Issue writ of Certiorari quashing impugned order dated 11/08/2016, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Kudligi, on IA.No.4, in FDP No 3/2011, vide Annexure-A. b) Issue writ of mandamus directing the Senior Civil Judge Kudligi to consider equities, valuation and beneficial partition etc., at the time affecting and accepting the division of properties. c) Issue such other writ or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to serve the ends of justice and equity.” 2. Sri.Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application in the FDP proceedings seeking permission to plead that item Nos.2 and 6 of the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties and seeks to adjudicate the same in the said proceedings. However, the FDP Court in the impugned order without appreciating the purpose and observations made by this Court in RSA.No.5239/2011 and connected matters rejected the application. This Court has specifically observed in the aforesaid - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11380 WP No. 109444 of 2016 judgment that defendant No.2 - Govindappa, to seek equities before the FDP Court on the ground that he has built a house by spending huge amount and he is living there. It is further contended that the petitioner could not place all the materials before the Court when the suit was decreed. Hence, he is required to be provided an opportunity to place the material before the FDP proceedings to establish that item Nos.2 and 6 are the self acquired properties. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supports the impugned order of the FDP Court and submits that the FDP Court taking note of the fact that the similar application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the FDP Court and again he has filed the application seeking the same relief which is barred by the principle of res-judicata. It is submitted that the observations of this Court in RSA.No.5239/2011 and connected matters with regard to the equities, the FDP Court has taken note of the same and PWD Engineer, Sandur is appointed to value item No. 6 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11380 WP No. 109444 of 2016 house property to enable respondent No.2 to seek equitable partition. Hence he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1 filed a suit in OS.No.17/2006 for relief of partition and separate possession which came to be decreed. The appeal in RA.No.23/2009 was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed RSA.No.5239/2011 and this Court along with RSA.Nos.5240/2011 and 5174/2011 vide common judgment dated 09.06.2014, dismissed the appeals upholding the judgment of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. This Court while dismissing the appeals observed that defendant No.2 - Govindappa, the present petitioner herein to seek equities before the FDP Court on the ground that he has built a house by spending huge amount and he is living there. Based on such observation the petitioner filed an application seeking to adjudicate the issue with regard to the acquisition of the properties claiming to be self acquired properties. It is to be noticed that a similar application was filed by the petitioner on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11380 WP No. 109444 of 2016 03.10.2015, which was rejected by the FDP Court on 30.11.2015. The trial Court taking note of the fact that the suit for partition was decreed and after the death of Respondent No.2 modified the share as 1/4th by substituting 1/5th share. The trial Court also taking note of the fact that to consider equity as observed by this Court in the aforesaid RSAs has appointed Valuer to value item No.6 house property. When things stood thus, I am of the considered view that the FDP Court was fully justified in rejecting the application taking note of the appointment of the Valuer and the FDP Court is required to proceed further in the matter based on the valuation. 6. With the above observations, I am of the considered view that the order impugned does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE ABK CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2