Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71186 (KAR)

SRI GANESH v. SMT PUTTAMMA

WP/3253/2024 · 2025-12-05

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51220 WP No. 3253 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 3253 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI GANESH, S/O MUNITHIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT EMBRAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562110, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT PUTTAMMA, W/O LATE M. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. NARAYANAMMA, D/O LATE M. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. MUNITHIMMARAYAPPA, S/O LATE M THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. RAJAMMA, W/O MUNITHIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT EMBRAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562110, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51220 WP No. 3253 of 2024 5. MANJULA, W/O RAVI, D/O MUNITHIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT SARKARI GUTTAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 6. YASHODAMMA, D/O SRI MUNITHIMMARAYAPPA, W/O DHANRAJ, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.212, SATHYANAGARA, BYAPPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, M.S NAGARA POST, NEAR GLORYFUL GOSPEL CHRUCH, BENGALURU-560054. 7. AMARAVATHI, D/O SRI MUNITHIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 8. THIMMAKKA W/O LATE M THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 9. MUNITHIMMAPPA, S/O LATE M THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 10. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE M THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 7 TO 10 ARE R/AT EMBRAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562110, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 11. SURESH BHATIA, S/O SRI M M BHATIA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51220 WP No. 3253 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO. 4406/7/8 HIGH POINT, NO.45, PALACE ROAD, BENGLAURU-560001. 12. SARASWATHAMMA, W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT MANCHANABELE VILLAGE - 562101, CHIKKABALALPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 13. BHAGYAMMA @ BHAGYALAKSHMI, D/O MUNITHIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT YAMBRAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110. 14. ANIL KUMAR, S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 15. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 14 AND 15 ARE R/AT YAMBRAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562110, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 16. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, WEST WING, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANIL RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R11, SRI H L PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R16, SRI NAVEEN KUMAR M, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6, R12, R1 TO R4, R7 TO R10 AND R13 TO R15 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51220 WP No. 3253 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 28.11.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.XIV FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 1 R/W SEC 151 CPC IN OS NO.791/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI VIDE ANNX-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 28.11.2023 on I.A. No.XIV in O.S. No.791/2008 rejecting the petitioner's application to direct defendant No.11 to produce bank details relating to the payment said to have been made when defendant No.11 purchased the property from remaining defendants. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit on the premise that the property was sold when he was minor. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that defendant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51220 WP No. 3253 of 2024 No.11 the purchaser should produce the bank details to establish the payment said to have been made as recited in the sale deed. 4. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set-aside. 5. Respondent No.11/defendant No.11 shall furnish the bank details for having made the payment as reflected in the sale deed dated 15.03.2005. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46