SRI. VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA v. SRI. SURESH
Case at a glance
- Bench
- R DEVDAS
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. SMT. SHANTAVVA, W/O. BASAVANNI HANAVANATTI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KOCHARI, TQ: HUKKERI-591340, DIST: BELAGAVI. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIREESH C.KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE TO R3…
Judgment
1. SRI. VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA, S/O. KENCHAPPA SUTAGATTI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NESARGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL.
2. SMT. KASTURI, W/O. VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA SUTAGATTI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NESARGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL. (BY SRI. LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. SURESH, S/O. VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA SUTAGATTI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NESARGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591121.
SRI. BASAPPA, S/O. VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA SUTAGATTI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: MILITARY SERVICE, R/O. NESARGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591121, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SMT. SHANTAVVA, W/O. BASAVANNI HANAVANATTI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KOCHARI, TQ: HUKKERI-591340, DIST: BELAGAVI. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIREESH C.KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) - RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14771 WP No. 102639 of 2022 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL IN M.A. NO. 07/21 DATED 10.06.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE- D AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) This writ petition is filed by the defendants No.1 and 4 in O.S. No. 241/2021 being aggrieved of the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2/ defendant No.4 are the parents of the plaintiff. It is not denied by the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties were purchased by the petitioners herein under registered sale deeds dated 07.01.2008. However the plaintiff contends that the properties were purchased by his parents/ defendants No.1 and 4 from out of the income of the joint family and therefore the plaintiff is seeking - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14771 WP No. 102639 of 2022 HC-KAR partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The appellate Court has opined that the question as to whether the properties were purchased from out of the funds of the joint family or self acquired properties of defendants No.1 and 4, is a matter of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it would suffice if the order passed by the trial Court “not to create any charge over the suit schedule properties” is modified while maintaining the directions “not to alienate”.
Operative part
Learned counsel submits that the petitioners seek to obtain the loan from a bank only for the purposes of developing agricultural lands. At this juncture learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ plaintiff submits that such modification may be made while maintaining the direction of temporary injunction “not to alienate the suit schedule properties” during the course of the suit proceedings. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of while modifying the orders passed by the trial Court on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14771 WP No. 102639 of 2022 HC-KAR application for temporary injunction filed at the hands of the plaintiff, to the extent that defendants No.1 to 4 shall not alienate the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. However, the defendants are at liberty to raise a loan on the suit schedule property only for the purpose of developing the lands and cultivate the property in question. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE BVV Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.