Karnataka High Court
WP/24923/2026 of E MANJUNATHA Vs SRI E BASAVARAJ on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010547212026 NC: 2026:KHC:48892 WP No. 24923 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 24923 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. E MANJUNATHA S/O LATE ERA NAGABHOVI, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 24923 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
E MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE ERA NAGABHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O K.M. ROAD, KADUR TOWN,
KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DIST.
PIN 577548.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI KUMAR N R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI E BASAVARAJ
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,
SMT. UMADEVI,
W/O LATE. E.BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
2.
SMT. ROOPASHREE,
D/O LATE.E.BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
3.
MURULIDHARA,
S/O LATE. E.BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT
1ST FLOOR, OPP. TO KIRIAN STREET,
3RD MAIN, 13TH PHASE, VINOBHANAGAR,
DAVANAGERE-577002.
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
4.
B. S. CHANDRASHEKARA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
SMT. PADMA H,
W/O LATE. B. S. CHANDRASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
5.
ISHWARYA,
D/O LATE. B. S. CHANDRASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT
4 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.15,4TH 'A' MAIN, 'B' CROSS,
KALYANA NAGARA,
NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE 560073
6.
E. NAGARAJA,
S/O LATE ERA NAGABHOVI,
DECEASED BY HIS LRS
SMT. SARASWATHI B.N,
W/O LATE E.NAGARAJA,
SINCE DEAD. BY LRS
MANOJ,
S/O LATE E. NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
7.
SMT. CHAITRA,
D/O LATE E. NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
6 & 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF
NO.58, 3RD CROSS,
SAIBABA NAGARA, SRIRAMPURA,
BANGALORE.
PIN NO.560021.
8.
E. UMAMAHESHA
S/O LATE ERA NAGABHOVI,
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O K.M. ROAD, KADUR TOWN,
KADUR TALUK.
CHIKMAGALUR DIST.
PIN 577548
9.
E. VINODHKUMAR
S/O LATE ERA NAGABHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O K.M. ROAD,
KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK.
CHIKMAGALUR DIST.
PIN 577548.
10.
SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
D/O LATE ERANAGABHOVI,
DECEASED BY HER LRS
SMT. BHAGYA,
D/O SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
11.
SMT. NANDA,
D/O LATE SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
12.
SMT. NALINA,
D/O LATE SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
13.
SMT. NITHYA,
D/O LATE SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
10 TO 13 ARE RESIDENTS OF
K.M. ROAD, KADUR TOWN.
CHIKMAGALUR DIST.
PIN 577548
14.
SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
D/O LATE ERA NAGABHOVI,
HC-KAR
W/O PUTTARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O NO.170, HEMASHREE,
ANANTHARAMAIAH COMPOUND,
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE.
PIN 560018
15.
SMT. KRISHNAKUMARI
D/O LATE ERA NAGABHOVI,
W/O S. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O BYATARAYANAPURA,
YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE, PIN 560092.
16.
DAMODHAR K.PATEL
S/O LATE K.H.PATEL
AGED 65 YEARS,
BUSINESS,
R/O BESIDE U.B.ROAD,
KADUR TOWN AND TQ
CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577548
17.
SMT. ARUNAKSHI C.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O KUMARANAIK S,
R/O GANDHINAGAR,
YEMMEDODDI DHAKALE,
CHIKKKANGALA POST,
BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DIST., PIN 577548.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 08.06.2026 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED ON IA
NO.04 FILED BY THE APPLICANT/PETITIONER UNDER ORDER- VI, RULE-17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN F.D.P
NO.04/2016 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KADUR
CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER HEREIN (IA NO. 4).
HC-KAR
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Ravi Kumar N.R., learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 08.06.2026 passed in FDP No.04/2016 on I.A.No.IV filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, whereby the application seeking insertion of additional properties in the petition came to be rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Item Nos.1 to 4 are properties held by the petitioner's father and that the same were not included in the partition suit. It is submitted that the said properties are required to be included in the preliminary decree.
4. Considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
HC-KAR
5. The trial Court, after holding that the petitioner is entitled to seek inclusion of the properties in the final decree proceedings, nevertheless rejected the application on the ground that the pleadings and documents are insufficient to substantiate the petitioner's case for inclusion of Item Nos.1 to 4.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the various documents produced along with the petition. On perusal of the said documents, this Court finds that they further substantiate the conclusion reached by the trial Court. The said documents cannot be considered sufficient justification for including Item Nos.1 to 4 properties in the final decree proceedings.
7. In that view of the matter, no ground is made out, nor is any error pointed out warranting interference with the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
HC-KAR
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application along with the necessary documents, which shall be considered independently by the trial Court.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5