Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32966 (KAR)

MUNIYAPPA v. SMT NARAYANAMMA

WP/17028/2023 · 2026-07-29

Vijaykumar A Patil

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397882023 NC: 2026:KHC:39722 WP No. 17028 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17028 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE SRI NARASIMAIAH RESIDENT OF VAGATA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADEESHA S.R., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH W/O NARAYANAPPA. SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HER LRS. 1. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 560067. 2. SMT. PADMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA D/O NARAYANAPPA AND NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397882023 NC: 2026:KHC:39722 WP No. 17028 of 2023 R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 560067. 3. B.N. NARAYANASWAMY S/O NARAYANAPPA AND NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT JYOTHIBAPULE NAGAR KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE AND HOBLI BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 560049. 4. B.N. VENKATESH S/O NARAYANAPPA AND NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 560067. 5. MANJULA B.N. W/O NARAYANAPPA D/O NARAYANAPPA AND NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS BYLAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 560067. 6. JADAGESH B.N. S/O NARAYANAPPA AND NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS JYOTHIBAPULE NAGAR KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE AND HOBLI BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 560049. 7. SMT. NARASAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH W/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397882023 NC: 2026:KHC:39722 WP No. 17028 of 2023 RESIDENT OF VAGATA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562114. 8. K.M. MANJULA D/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 9. K.M. GAYATHRI D/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 10. K.M. SURESH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 11. K.M. AMBIKA D/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 8 TO 11 ARE RESIDENT OF KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562114. 12. K.P. NIRMALA D/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO 205, SINDHU NILAYA MARATHAHALLI RING ROAD 10TH CROSS, DEVARABISNAHALLI BANGALORE 560130. 13. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (BANGALORE CHENNAI EXPRESSWAY) NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397882023 NC: 2026:KHC:39722 WP No. 17028 of 2023 NO 678/3, NEERUBHAVI KEMPANNA LAYOUT HEBBAL, BANGALORE 560024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DAYANANDA K.G., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6, R8 TO R11; R1, R7, R12, R13 ARE SERVED) - - - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03/07/2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE, IN OS.NO.430/2014 ON I.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: a) Quashing the order dated 03/07/2023 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote, in O.S.No.430/2014 on I.A. filed under section 151 of CPC, Produced at ANNEXURE-J. b) Consequently allowing the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 of CPC for disbursal of the compensation amount to the extent of 1/4th share, Produced at ANNEXURE- 'F'. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397882023 NC: 2026:KHC:39722 WP No. 17028 of 2023 2. Heard Sri.Jagadeesha S.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Dayananda K.G., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 6 and 8 to 11. 3. The plaintiff No.1-Smt. Narayanamma had filed a suit in O.S.No.430/2014 for the relief of partition and separate possession. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of deceased Narayanamma. In the said suit, the petitioner-defendant No.1 filed a detailed written statement. When the matter was pending, the petitioner- defendant No.1 filed an application seeking prayer to direct the office to release Rs.42,72,084/- in favour of the petitioner-defendant No.1 stating that it would be the appropriate share of the petitioner-defendant No.1. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court. The assertion of the petitioner-defendant No.1 is that one of the suit schedule properties has been acquired by the respondent No.13 and the said respondent has deposited - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397882023 NC: 2026:KHC:39722 WP No. 17028 of 2023 the compensation amount before the Civil Court in the said suit and the amount sought in the application is his share. 4. In my considered view, the entitlement of the defendant No.1 is required to be adjudicated in the suit. The parties to the proceedings are required to establish the relationship and the share in the property, in the aforesaid suit. Unless the said adjudication takes place, the petitioner-defendant No.1 cannot claim his share of the amount, which is impermissible. The Trial Court, considering the same, has rightly rejected the application. The plaintiffs in the suit are vehemently opposing the entitlement of the share by the defendant No.1. Hence, in the absence of any adjudication with regard to the right of the petitioner-defendant No.1 seeking to release the amount claimed as his share, the same would amount to pre-judging the right of the petitioner-defendant No.1 which is impermissible in a suit for partition. I do not find - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397882023 NC: 2026:KHC:39722 WP No. 17028 of 2023 any good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 5. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby rejected. (ii) The Trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46