- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9950 WP No. 102499 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 102499 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI IRAPPA S/O GOVINDAPPA MALALI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. HEBBAL, TQ. MUDHOL DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.S. YALIGAR & SRI. SHIVAKUMAR APARAJ., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT GANGAWWA W/O GOVINDAPPA MALALI AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. KAJIBILIGI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. 2. SRI ASHOK W/O GOVINDAPPA MALALI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. KAJIBILIGI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.-587301. 3. SMT. RADHA W/O KRISHNAPPA JOGI AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 4. SRI. VENKAPPA S/O SATTEPPA MALALI AGE. 54 YEARS, Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9950 WP No. 102499 of 2025 OCC. AGRICULTURE, 5. SRI. RANGAPPA S/O SATTEPPA MALALI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 6. SRI. IRAPPA S/O SATTEPPA MALALI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 7. SRI. RANGAPPA S/O BEERAPPA MALALI AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 8. SRI. ADIVEPPA S/O RUDRAPPA MALALI AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 9. SRI. HANUMANTH S/O RUDRAPPA MALALI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 9 ARE R/AT. HEBBAL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3; R-4 TO R9 NOTICE D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUDHOL ON I.A. NO. 3 DATED. 27.02.2025 IN FDP NO. 14 OF 2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND REJECTION OF THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9950 WP No. 102499 of 2025 APPLICATION IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE ALL SETTLED PROPOSITIONS OF LAW AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions and quash the order passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Mudhol on I.A.No.3 dated 27.02.2025 in FDP No.14 of 2021 as per Annexure-H and rejection of the application is contrary to law and contrary to the all settled propositions of law; and ii. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.3 in FDP No.14 of 2021 to include 10 properties, on the ground that the said properties have been left out in the suit, these properties are also joint family properties and insofar as 3 of the properties are concerned they are - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9950 WP No. 102499 of 2025 standing in the name of one Sri.Krishna S/o Basappa Jogi who is the husband of plaintiff No.3, the same having been purchased from joint family funds. The said application having been rejected, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said order dated 27.02.2025 passed in FDP No.14 of 2021 on I.A.No.3 and 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the said properties which are proposed to be introduced in the FDP proceedings are joint family properties and had not been included in suit earlier and as such the parties having the right in the said properties, the same need to be made part of the schedule for effecting a partition among all the properties of the family. 4. Learned counsel for respondents would however submit that; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9950 WP No. 102499 of 2025 4.1 Many of these properties were already considered in OS No.142 of 2018 while passing the decree regarding which the FDP proceedings in FDP No.14 of 2021 have been initiated. 4.2 In this regard he relies upon para 26 of the said judgement and submits that the property at Sl.No.2 176/B, the property at Sl.No.4 176/B2, the property at Sl.No.5 RS No.128/1A/1, the property at Sl.No.6 176/A, the property at Sl.No.7 128/1B, the property at Sl.No.8 128/1A/2 were all sought to be made part of the suit in OS No.142/2018 and the trial Court while dealing with the same at para 26 of the judgement in the said matter as categorically come to a conclusion that those properties are not joint family properties. 4.3 Insofar as the property at Sl.No.1 viz., VPC No.285, property at No.3 viz., RS No.198/3, the property at Sl.No.9 198/2 and the property at Sl.No.10 RS No.193/5 his submission is that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9950 WP No. 102499 of 2025 first of the 2 properties stand in the name of Sri.Krishna S/o Basappa Jogi and Sl.No.9 and 10 standing in the name of Sri.Nagabhushan S/o Krishnappa Jogi, who is the brother of the husband of plaintiff No.3, submits that those properties could not be included. 5. Heard Sri.S.S.Yaligar., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Shivanand Malashetti., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and perused papers. 6. A perusal of para 27 of the judgement in OS No.142/2018 would establish the claim of the learned counsel for respondents inasmuch as the properties as detailed herein above were considered by a trial Court and it was held that they were not ancestral properties, and the inclusion of those properties could not be so made. 7. When such a categorical finding has been given in OS No.142/2018 and the said finding has attained finality in RSA No.100150 of 2023 it is not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9950 WP No. 102499 of 2025 permissible for the petitioners to file one more application to bring the very same properties on record in the FDP proceedings. The said application in my considered opinion is a complete abuse of process of the Court and an attempt made to protract the proceedings knowing fully well that those properties could not have been brought on record. 8. In that view of the matter, no ground being made out, the petition being an abuse of the process of Court stands dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority which shall be so paid within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the KSLSA will be entitled to recover the cost as arrears of Land Revenue. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64