IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOS.9771-73/2014 &16617-16619/2014(GM-CPC) BETWEEN SRI.KAVERI SHEDTHY SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.R SMT. CHIKKAMMA SHEDTHI, D/O GANGAMMA SHEDTHI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT HOSALA VILLAGE, POST BARKUR, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.SUBRAMANYA ADIGA S/O ANANTHAYYA ADIGA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT MOODAKERI OF HANEHALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 574 201.
2. SRI LAXMINARAYANA ADIGA S/O ANANTHAYYA ADIGA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT MOODAKERI OF HANEHALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-574 201.
3. SRI RAMA ADIGA S/O ANANTHAYYA ADIGA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT HOSALA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-574 201 4. SRI KRISHNA ADIGA S/O ANANTHAYYA ADIGA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT MOODAKERI OF HANEHALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-574 201. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VYASA RAO K.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4 R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT/QUASHING THE ORDER DT.17.9.2011 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V TO VII IN R.A.NO.44 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF SR. CIVIL JUDGE AT KUNDAPURA AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These writ petitions are filed in the name of deceased Kaveri Shedthi, plaintiff in OS.No.458/1997 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Kundapur. Admittedly, said suit was filed by her for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of suit schedule property against respondents in this proceedings.
2. It is stated that the suit filed by Kaveri Shedthi came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 15.7.2004, which was taken up in appeal by her in RA.No.44/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kundapur. It is seen that during the pendency of said appeal, original plaintiff - Kaveri Shedthi died on 22.8.2005. It is in this background, a set of applications in IA.Nos.5 to 7 came to be filed by one Girija Shedti aged about 72 years said to be wife of Jogappa Shetty claiming herself to be legal heir of Kaveri Shedti. It is seen that an enquiry was conducted by the lower appellate court, where said Girija Shedthi was not able to establish her relationship to deceased Kaveri Shedthi to claim a right to proceed with the suit as her legal heir, consequently the said applications in IAs.5 to 7 came to be dismissed on 17.9.2011.
3. It is thereafter one Chikkamma Shedthi is said to have filed another set of applications in IAs.9 to 11 in the said appeal seeking permission to come on record as legal heir of deceased original plaintiff - Kaveri Shedthi. It is seen that said Chikkamma Shdthi did not enter witness box to adduce evidence in an enquiry conducted in the said proceedings to demonstrate that she is the legal heir of deceased Kaveri Shedthi, consequently the said set of applications in IAs.9 to 11 filed by her also came to be dismissed on 18.7.2013. It is said Chikkamma Shedthi who has come up in these writ petitions challenging the order dated 17.9.2011 in rejecting IAs.5 to 7 and also order dated 18.7.2013 in rejecting IAs.9 to 11 in RA.44/2004.
4. It is seen that during the pendency of these writ petitions said Chikkamma Shedthi also has died on 28.11.2017. In this background, the present set of applications in IA.Nos.1 to 3 of 2018 are filed. In the normal circumstances, question of calling for objections on said applications does not arise in as much as it is the prerogative of the legal heirs of deceased petitioner to pursue the matter by coming on record. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case learned counsel Sri.K.S.Vyasa Rao, appearing for some of the respondents 2 to 4 would oppose these three applications on the ground that the very orders which are subject matter of these writ petitions are with reference to the right of Chikkamma Shedthi in pursuing RA.No.44/2004 filed by Kaveri Shedthi as her legal heir. In fact, in an enquiry which was conducted in said proceedings, she has failed to establish that she is the legal heir of deceased Kaveri Shedthi. It is also contended that the applications of Chikkamma Shedthi are subsequent to dismissal of applications filed by Girija Shedthi in claiming herself being the legal heir of deceased Kaveri Shedthi. When said applicants were not able to establish their relationship to Kaveri Shedthi to pursue the original suit which was filed by her for the relief of declaration and injunction, present applications filed by the legal representatives of unsuccessful applicant in RA.No.44/2004 do not survive for consideration in these writ petitions.
5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry and learned counsel Sri.K.S.Vyasa Rao, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applications in IAs.1 to 3 of 2018 filed by the legal representatives of original writ petitioner do not merit consideration. Accordingly, they are dismissed, consequently, the writ petitions are also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-