GIRIRAJ S/O SOMASHEKHARAPPA KAKOL v. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O BASAVARAJAPPA DALAWAI ALIAS KAKOL
WP/109135/2025 · 2025-12-02
Anant Ramanath Hegde
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 60312 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 60312 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17028 WP No. 109135 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 109135 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. GIRIRAJ S/O SOMASHEKHARAPPA KAKOL, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. ENGINEER, R/O. OPP. BUS STAND, HIREKERUR, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST, HAVERI-581 111. 2. SMT. PARVATI D/O SOMASHEKHARAPPA KAKOL, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. OPP. BUS-STAND, HIREKERUR, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 111. 3. SMT. LAXMI D/O SOMASHEKHARAPPA KAKOL, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. OPP. BUS STAND, HIREKERUR, NOW R/O. INNOVATIVE OAK GARDENS, BOGANAHALLI VILLAGE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 013. 4. SMT. SHANTAMMA W/O SOMASHEKHARAPPA KAKOL, AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. OPP. BUS STAND, HIREKERUR, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 111. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O BASAVARAJAPPA DALAWAI @ KAKOL, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O. BASAVESHWARA NILAYA,
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location:
HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17028 WP No. 109135 of 2025
CHOLAMANDALESHWARA NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, RANEBENNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 115. 2. BHARAMAGOUDA S/O BASAVARAJAPPA DALAWAI @ KAKOL, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NOOLAGERI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 111. 3. ERANAGOUDA S/O BASAVARAJAPPA DALAWAI @ KAKOL, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NOOLAGERI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 111. 4. SMT. ANASUYA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA DALAWAI @ KAKOL, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NOOLAGERI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 111. 5. SMT. GIRIJAVVA W/O VEERAPPA KAJJAGI, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. B.G. BANAKAR, BADAVANE, HIREKERUR, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 111. 6. SMT. RENUKA W/O SHIVANAND BISALAHALLI, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKANAJI, TQ. BYADAGI, DIST. HAVERI-581 106. … RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR IN O.S.
NO.10/2021 ON I.A. NO.2 DATED 18.01.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND REJECT THE I.A. NO.2 DATED 09.07.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE- E AND ETC.
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17028 WP No. 109135 of 2025
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
This petition is filed assailing the order dated 18.01.2025 allowing the application of respondents No.5 and 6 to come on record in a suit for partition filed by legal representatives of deceased Basavarajappa against legal representatives of deceased Somashekharappa. 2. Admittedly Basavarajappa and Somashekharappa are the brothers. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that the properties are the self-acquired properties of Basavarajappa and Somashekharappa. Thus the proposed defendants No.11 and 12 (respondent Nos.5 and 6) who are the sisters of Basavarajappa and Somashekharappa do not have any right over the property and they cannot be impleaded in a suit for partition between the legal descendants of Basavarajappa and Somashekharappa. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also urged that the sisters have not made a claim that the properties are
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17028 WP No. 109135 of 2025
ancestral properties and this is the precise objection filed by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants and they have also stated that the properties are the self-acquired properties. These
contentions are not addressed by the Trial Court and without assigning valid reasons the Trial Court has allowed the application. 4. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 5. It is indeed true that Basavarajappa and Somashekharappa are the brothers and the proposed defendants No.11 and 12 are the sisters of said Basavarajappa and Somashekharappa. Learned counsel for the petitioners is also right in contending that in the application to come on record the proposed defendant Nos.11 and 12 have not stated that the properties are ancestral properties. It is stated that they are the children of deceased Bharmappa. 6. Technically speaking there may be some lacuna in the application wherein it is not clearly specified as to how the proposed defendant Nos.11 and 12 are the necessary parties to
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17028 WP No. 109135 of 2025
the suit. However it is not in dispute that they are the sisters of Basavarajappa and Somashekharappa. For any reason if they are to contend that the properties acquired by Basavarajappa and Somashekharappa are the properties derived from the ancestral income then probably they may have right in the property. 7. If the present petition is allowed and their application is dismissed for want of necessary particulars in the application that will not preclude the sisters of Basavarajappa and Somashekharappa to file a suit for partition if they have any right over the property. 8. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that impleading of defendant Nos.11 and 12 in this suit will avoid multiplicity of litigation and all the contentions of the parties will be decided in one suit, which is certainly more advisable than having two different adjudications in two different cases. For aforementioned reasons, this Court does not entertain this writ petition. 9. It is made clear that merely because defendants Nos.11 and 12 are allowed to come on record, it should not be
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17028 WP No. 109135 of 2025
construed as having said that defendant No.11 and 12 are the persons having right over the properties. It cannot be construed as the Court having declared that the properties are the joint family properties or ancestral properties.
Whether defendant Nos.11 and 12 have any right over the properties have to be established by the evidence to be led by defendant Nos.11 and 12. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE EM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25