Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
WRIT PETITION Nos.6918-6920/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN: H B NARAPPA, 80 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVANAGOWDA CHAMARAJPET DAVANAGERE-577006.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M V HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND
G B NAGARAJ, 55 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVANAGOWDA NO.3682/A-27 TARALABALU EXTENSION DAVANAGERE-577006
G B NATARAJ, 57 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVANAGOWDA R/O GANDHINAGAR HULIKATTE POST DAVANAGERE TALUK-577006
DR B CHANDRANATHA, 53 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVANAGOWDA PROP: NANJAMMA HOSPITAL MARUTI EXTENSION, MALUR 563130, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101
SMT NARAMMA, 66 YEARS W/O MAHADEVAPPA C/O BASAVESHWARA RICE INDUSTRIES SHIRAMAGONDANAHALLI DAVANAGERE TALUK & DIST-577006
2 5. SMT SAVAMMA, 65 YEARS W/O KALLAPPA R/O HULIHAL BISTUVALLI POST CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577501
SMT GANGAMMA W/O BASAPPA, 62 YEARS NO.1660/10, TARALABALU EXTENSIOND, DAVANAGERE-577006
SMT GOWRAMMA, 60 YEARS W/O BASAVARAJAPPA DOOR NO. 3681/A5, TARALABALU EXTENSION DAVANAGERE-577006
SMT SHOBHA W/O RAVI, 50 YEARS DOOR NO. 1780/65 VIDYANAGARA DAVANAGERE-577006
SMT SUVARNA, 47 YEARS W/O SANKAPPA PRASHANTH AGRO FERTILIZERS S S COMPLEX, K R ROAD DAVANAGERE-577006
SMT SUNANDA, 44 YEARS W/O NATARAJA GANDHINAGARA HULIKATTE POST DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577006
RAVI, 45 YEARS S/O MRUTYUNJAYAPPA BELAVANURU POST DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577006
RAGHU, 43 YEARS S/O MRUTYUNJAYAPPA BELAVANURU POST DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577006
3 13. RAJU, 42 YEARS S/O MRUTYUNJAYAPPA BELAVANURU POST DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577006.
... RESPONDENTS
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-L & ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
In a suit for partition filed by petitioner/plaintiff, defendants no.1 and 3 have contended that suit items No.A-4 and A-27 are self-acquired properties and they have also profounded will dated 26.02.1996.
The petitioner had made an application under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC, calling upon defendant no.1 to produce his income tax returns from the year 1993-94 to 2009-10 and furnish particulars of attesting witnesses of will dated 26.02.1996. The learned trial judge has rejected the application.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
The defendants 1 and 3 have contended that suit items No.A-4 and A-27 are their self-acquired properties. Therefore, it is for defendants 1 and 3 to prove this fact. Even otherwise, declaration made in the income tax returns is not decisive of nature of acquisition. The law does not contemplate that particulars of witnesses should be furnished by the party to the opponent. The names and addresses of witnesses would suffice the purpose. The learned trial judge has rightly dismissed the application.
There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Np/-