SMT KASTURI W/O SHANKARA WAGMODE vs SHRI SURESH S/O MALU SHANDAGE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16881
WP No. 108360 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020176932026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 108360 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KASTURI W/O SHANKARA WAGMODE
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER,
R/O. BHIRADI, TQ. RAIBAG,
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI 591317.
2. SMT. PREMA W/O VASANT WAGMODE
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER,
R/O. MORAB, TQ. RAIBAG,
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI 591317.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI SURESH S/O MALU SHANDAGE
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MORAB, TAL. RAIBAG,
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI 591317.
2. SMT. SUSHMA W/O BABURA KHARAT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RANDEL, TAL. HATKANGAL,
DISTRICT. KOLHAPUR,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
3. SRI. VISHWANATH S/O SADASHIVA PURVEKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. PATTANAKODI, TQ. CHIKKODI,
NOW RESIDING AT KUPAWAD,
TQ. MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI
4. SMT. ASHWINI S/O MAHALING SALAGAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
SRI. MAHALING S/O LAXMAN SALAGAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16881
WP No. 108360 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020176932026
R/O. SAINAGAR, KUPWAD,
TQ. MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI,
MAHARASHTRA STATE 416436
5. SRI. DHANANJAY S/O MAHALING SALAGAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. SAINAGAR, KUPWAD,
TQ. MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI,
MAHARASHTRA STATE 416436
6. SAKSHI D/O MAHALING SALAGAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. SAINAGAR, KUPWAD,
TQ. MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI,
MAHARASHTRA STATE 416436
7. SMT. ROHINI D/O SURESH SHANDAGE
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MORAB, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
8. SRI. MILIND @ MANIK S/O SURESH SHANDAGE
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICUTLURE,
R/O. MORAB, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
9. SRI. VISHAL S/O SURESH SHANDAGE
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MORAB, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH S. GHULAPPANAVAR, ADV. FOR R7 TO R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYNG TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 07.08.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.8 IN OS NO.100/2022
BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG VIDE ANNEXURE-F
BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16881
WP No. 108360 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020176932026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioners are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S.No.100/2022
filed by them for the relief of partition and separate
possession. An application in I.A.No.8 came to be filed
by the respondents 7, 8 and 9 herein seeking to come
on record as proposed defendants 6, 7 and 8 on the
premise that the suit properties are the Sthreedhana
properties of one Yellawwa who is the grandmother of
the impleading applicants and that the said Yellawwa
had executed a Will dated 24.07.2002 bequeathing the
suit property in their favour. As such they have a share,
right, title and interest in the suit properties.
2. Objections to the said application came to be filed
denying the claim of the impleading applicants. Also
contending that proceedings in P& SC No.33/2020 had
been initiated by the impleading applicants which has
been dismissed and the said impleading applicants are
neither proper parties nor necessary parties for the suit
for partition, hence sought for rejection of the same. By
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16881
WP No. 108360 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020176932026
the impugned order dated 07.08.2026 the trial Court
has allowed the application permitting them to come on
record. Being aggrieved by the same the present writ
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is unsustainable firstly , for the reason of
impleading applicants suppressing the order being
passed in P& SC No.33/2020 which had been filed by the
impleading applicants seeking issuance of probate of the
Will dated 24.07.2002 purportedly executed by
Yellawwa. Secondly , since the said probate proceedings
have resulted in its dismissal, the impleading applicants
cannot re-agitate the matter in a suit. Thirdly , he relies
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Agricultural and Processed Food Products Vs
Oswal Agro Furane and others reported in (1996) 4
SCC 297 and referring to paragraph 30 of the said
judgment submits the party who suppresses the
material fact is not entitled for the equitable relief. Thus
seeks for quashing of the impugned order.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16881
WP No. 108360 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020176932026
4. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents 7 to 9
justifying the impugned order submits that the trial
Court has taken note of the reasons assigned in the
proceedings in P& SC No.33/2020 and there is no
suppression of the said proceedings since the impleading
applicants are seeking their right in respect of the suit
schedule property which according to them is a Sridhana
property belonging to Yellawwa and said Yellawwa
having bequeathed her share, right, title and interest in
favour of the impleading applicants their presence
before the Court is necessary for effective disposal of
the suit and also in order to avoid multiplicity of the
proceedings. Therefore seeks for dismissal of the
petition.
5. Heard and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute that the impleading applicants had
initiated the proceedings under the provisions of Section
276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking issuance of
probate in respect of a Will dated 24.07.2002
purportedly executed by their grandmother Yellawwa in
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16881
WP No. 108360 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020176932026
respect of the properties which are subject matter of the
aforesaid suit for partition the said P& SC No.33/2020
has been rejected by order dated 29.03.2022. The
Probate Court in paragraph 9 of the said order, has
observed as " The Will is written by a Hindu it is not
required to be probated. However it can be proved in
appropriate proceedings or suits whenever it is held as
defence."
7. Having observed as above, the Probate Court had
proceeded to reject the petition as the witnesses as
required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act
were not produced.
8. The Trial Court in the impugned order at paragraph 15
of its order has taken note of the said proceedings in P&
SC No.33/2020 and also the observation noted in the
Probate Court as extracted herein above. The trial Court
on appreciation of the material placed before it for
consideration of I.A.No.8 has found existence of prima
facie material for permitting the proposed defendants to
come on record as defendants for effective adjudication
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16881
WP No. 108360 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020176932026
of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of the
proceedings. There is neither any perversity nor any
irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court.
This Court therefore do not see any reason to interfere
with the order passed by the trial Court.
Petition accordingly is dismissed .
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
SBN
CT:cmu
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23