SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 17042

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ANITA D/O ACHUTHRAO DESAI – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. ACHUTHRAO S/O KRISHNARAO DESAI – Respondent
WP 100176/2026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100176 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

ANITA D/O. ACHUTHRAO DESAI, AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AS ANITA W/O. AMAR KINI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. C/O. ANTONIO FERNANDIS, H.NO.818, ST. AGOSTINHO, NEAR HAPPY CEMENT AGENCY, CALAPHOR SANTA CRUZ, NORTH GOA-403005.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH S.SHETTEMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI. ACHUTHRAO S/O. KRISHNARAO DESAI, Digitally signed by AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR R/O. C/O. ANTONIO FERNANDIS, Location: HIGH COURT OF H.NO.818 ST. AGOSTINHO, KARNATAKA NEAR HAPPY CEMENT AGENCY, CALAPHOR SANTA CRUZ, NORTH GOA-403005.

HANAMANT GUDI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

2. SMT. JAYASHREE W/O. VIJAYVITTAL GUDI, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.

3. SRI. VYASAKUMAR S/O. HANUMANTH GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.

4. VADIRAJ S/O. HANUMANTH GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.

5. SRI. VASANTH S/O. HANUMANTH GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.

6. SRI. VENKATESH S/O. HANUMANTH GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.

MADVACHARYA GUDI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

7. SRI. GURURAJ S/O. MADHVACHARYA GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.

8. SMT. PREMA W/O. KRISHNA NAVARATNA, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.

9. SMT. LAXMI @ SUBHADRA W/O. VADIRAJ BAGALI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.

10. SMT. DAMAYANTI W/O. MADHVACHARYA GUDI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MACHAPUR, TQ. KALAGHATGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204.

11. SRI. RAMESH S/O. TIMMAJI DESAI, AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. PVT. WORK, R/O. 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, DHARWAD-580004.

12. SRI. UMESH S/O. TIMMAJI DESAI, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. RTD., R/O. KELKAR COMPOUND, MAHASHI ROAD, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD-580007.

13. SMT. SUMAN D/O. ACHUTHRAO DESAI, [AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AS SUMAN B.TAPAS]

AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. C/O. BALADISKHIT TAPAS, DATTA ABHILASHSA, 6TH CROSS, MALAMADDI, NARAYAN RESIDENCY, GTS, DHARWAD-580007.

14. SMT. POORNIMA D/O. ACHUTHRAO DESAI, [AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AS POORNIMA V.KULKARNI]

AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. C/O. H.NO.2883/B, 14TH MAIN, RAJAJI NAGAR, 2ND STAGE ‘E’ BLOCK, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

…RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO.XXI PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT KALAGHATGI IN OS NO.28/2022 DATED 06/11/2025 WHICH IS PRODUCED UNDER ANNEXURE-G, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2025 in I.A.No.21 in O.S.No.28/2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaghatgi (for short “the Trial Court”).

2. The petitioner before this Court is the plaintiff. The suit is filed for partition. This application i.e., I.A.No.21 is filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC for framing Additional Issue No.1 to 9. The Trial Court, by order impugned, has dismissed the said application. While dismissing the same, the Trial Court observed that it has framed issues based on the pleadings of the parties. The matter is posted for further evidence of defendants. It is the duty of the Court to frame proper issues based on pleadings of parties and documents placed on record. In the present case on hand, alleged relinquishment deed has not been produced by plaintiffs or defendants. Mere suggestions made to the witnes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top