REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR. vs MALLIKARJUN & ORS.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ
REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
MALLIKARJUN & ORS. – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Adv., Mr. Mahaling P., Adv., Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR, ...
For the Respondents: Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR, Ms. Shivansh Dwivedi, Adv., ...

ORDER

C.A. NO.2844 OF 2011: Delay in filing substitution application is condoned. Abatement is set aside. Application for substitution to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased-respondent no.4 is allowed. Application for intervention is allowed. The question of law involved in this appeal has been settled by a larger Bench decision of this Court in ‘Revanasiddappa & Anr Vs Mallikarjun & Ors.’, reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1087. In such view of the matter, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. However, the parties are at liberty to seek a further preliminary decree as the respondent No.4 is no more. If such an application is filed, the same has to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, as Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2023.12.04 17:03:41 IST Reason:

law does not prohibit successive preliminary decree by taking

into consideration the subsequent development of facts and

law.

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

C.A. No. 7318/2014:

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

Despite notice being served and the name of the counsel

ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The first case, , references a decision of the Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa, suggesting a judicial development or clarification rather than a reversal or overruling. The second case, , states a legal principle established by precedent, with no indication of subsequent negative treatment. Therefore, there are no cases identified as bad law based solely on the information provided.

Followed / Affirmed:

: The case states that "Illegitimate children are entitled to a share in the properties of their deceased father, as established by precedent." This indicates that the case has been recognized as establishing or affirming a legal principle that is still valid and accepted.

Distinguished / Clarified:

: This case discusses legitimacy and inheritance rights, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Revanasiddappa. The mention of the Supreme Court decision suggests that this case may be relying on or interpreting prior rulings rather than overruled or reversed cases. It may also be distinguished or clarified in light of the Supreme Court's decision, but there is no explicit indication of this.

No explicit treatment such as criticized, questioned, overruled, or reversed is indicated for either case, so they are grouped under general treatment as established or affirmed law.

None of the cases present treatment that is ambiguous or unclear based on the provided information. The references to Supreme Court decisions and principles suggest a straightforward legal status, with no indication that their precedential value has been questioned or overturned.

**Source :** Divyalakshmi, Dakshayani vs Bindu, Subin, Sachin - Kerala REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR. vs MALLIKARJUN & ORS. - Supreme Court

M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJREVANASIDDAPPA & ANR. – AppellantVersusMALLIKARJUN & ORS. – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ
REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
MALLIKARJUN & ORS. – Respondent