DATED

26.11.2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION FILED BY THE

PETITIONER HEREIN FOR ENHANCEMENT OF SHARE OR

3

EQUAL SHARE ON PAR WITH SON IN FDP NO.1/2010 ON

THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT

ANEKAL VIDE ANNX-A.

THIS

WRIT

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE

THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner's application in FDP No.01/2010 on

the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal

(for short, 'the civil Court') is rejected by the impugned

order dated 26.11.2021. The civil Court by this

impugned order has not only rejected the petitioner's

application for enlargement of shares granted in terms

of the preliminary decree confirmed in an appeal by this

Court but has also directed drawing up of final decree in

terms of the sketch filed by the Commissioner along

with his report dated 22.04.2019. The petitioner's

application, which is for enlargement of shares based on

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta

Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma reported in 2020 (9) SCC

1, is rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner

4

has not produced any documents to show that she was

born prior to 1956.

Sri Fayaz Sab B.G., the learned counsel for the

petitioner, submits that the petitioner is brought on

record in the original proceedings on the demise of

Sri.Ele Nanjappa and even as of the date she was

brought on record, as is obvious from the preliminary

decree, the petitioner was aged 27 years and if this

remains indisputable, it would be beyond cavil that the

petitioner is born after 1956. The petitioner9s case is

that the civil Court has not considered the material on

record in arriving at its conclusion that the petitioner

has failed to establish that she was born after 1956 or

that the preliminary decree must be revisited in view of

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta

Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma supra.

5

The proceedings are pending from the year 1989

without culmination and if there would be a stay of

further proceedings on the grounds now urged, the

protraction would only be exaggerated. In the light of

the above and because the petitioner contends the

material facts are not considered, this Court is of the

considered view that the petition must be disposed of

with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for

review of the impugned order and calling upon the civil

Court to consider the same in the light of the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v.

Rakesh Sharma.

The petition stands disposed of with such liberty.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SA/-

Ct:sr