BASAVARAJU v. VASANTHA

D/O LATE DUGGAPPA GOWDA, W/O SRIKANTHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT HUKALA BAILU, THIRTHAMUTTUR POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK - 577 432, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:149 WP No. 49754 of 2018

#3. BHUDEVI, D/O LATE DUGGAPPA GOWDA, W/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O KEREJEDDU, CHIKKALURU VILLAGE, AGUMBE HOBLI, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK - 577 432, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

#4. VISHALAKSHI, D/O LATE DUGGAPPA GOWDA, W/O B.V.NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O HOLALURE BETTADAGERE VILLAGE, AGUMBE HOBLI, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK - 577 432, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARCHANA K.M, AMICUS CURIAE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN R.A.NO.60/2013 REJECTING THE IA NO.3 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 3 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-E IN R.A.NO.60/2013 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:149 WP No. 49754 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.III in R.A.No.60/2013 dated 26.10.2018 by the Court of III Addl. District Judge at Shivamogga, the appellant is before this Court.

#2. Respondents herein have filed suit seeking declaration that the appellant is Illatom-son-in-law of defendant No.1. The suit was decreed as far as partition is concerned. However, when it comes to the relief of declaring him as Illatom-son-law of defendant No.1 that was negatived by the Court. Against that, the plaintiff has filed R.A.No.60/2013. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant No.1-father-in-law expired then the appellant filed an application to implead him as representative of the deceased father-in-law which came - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:149 WP No. 49754 of 2018 to be dismissed by the Appellate Court by the order impugned, wherein the Court gave a finding that the purpose of any adjudication to bring the legal heirs on record is only to represent the estate of deceased and protect interest of the deceased. The legal heirs who are the best persons to protect the interest of the deceased or his estate are already on the array of parties as respondents. The appellant has stated that he is entitled to share in the property of the deceased as the legal heir, larger sense, includes his claim to be a representative of first respondent. The Court gives a finding that all the legal heirs of the deceased are already on record and the question whether the appellant is a legal heir has to be decided in the appeal and the appellant cannot permit him to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased father-in-law. The Court also observed that however, it is open to the appellant to substantiate his contention since the very finding is under challenge in the appeal on the same issue and accordingly, dismissed the application. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:149 WP No. 49754 of 2018

#3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ appellant submits that the Court had come to a wrong conclusion and dismissed the application. He submits that if the application is not allowed, it would cause lot of prejudice to the petitioner. It is submitted that the finding of Court that the appellant cannot come on record as a legal heir will affect the petitioner in case if he succeeds in the appeal. He submits that he would have been impleaded as legal representative of the deceased defendant No.1.

#4. Though respondents were served, no vakalat is filed on their behalf. This Court has appointed Smt. Archana K.M., as Amicus Curiae to represent the respondents. She submits that the appeal questioning the finding that the appellant is not the Illatom-son-law of defendant No.1. When that is the case, question of impleading him as the legal representative will not arise. The Court has rightly considered all these aspects and dismissed the application. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:149 WP No. 49754 of 2018

#5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Amicus Curiae representing the respondents, perused the material on record.

#6. Appellant wants declaration that he is a Illatom- son-law and also sought for partition. The Court had granted partition but however, the declaration that is sought is dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant No.1 is died and plaintiff No.3 wants to come on record as legal representative of defendant No.1. The Court has rightly considered all the aspects and rightly dismissed the petition. If the I.A. filed by the appellant is allowed, it virtually amounts to accepting the case of the petitioner that he is the Illatom-son-in-law of defendant No.1 which is not permissible. He is already contesting the appeal. In the event if succeeds in the appeal, all other aspects will be looked into by the Court. This Court had given a reasoned finding. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the II - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:149 WP No. 49754 of 2018 Additional Sr. Civil Judge at Shimoga. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER

#1. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

#2. The fee of the Amicus Curiae fixed at Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: BHK