Same Family Land, Different Claims: Karnataka HC Refuses Common Trial Of Partition Suits Involving One Or Both Wives’ Heirs

The petitioner, plaintiff No. 1 in O.S. No. 8/2021 and defendant No. 3 in O.S. No. 130/2022, sought to have the two partition suits tried jointly with common evidence.

Both suits concern properties originally belonging to A.B. Marulanagouda. O.S. No. 8/2021 concerns claims among the children of his second wife, while O.S. No. 130/2022 involves the children of both wives and a broader set of claims.

The trial court rejected the request for a common trial but directed that the suits be tried and disposed of simultaneously. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis of its reasoning.

It applied the procedural principle that overlap in subject matter alone does not require a common trial; the court must consider the causes of action and issues arising in each suit.

Where the suits involve distinct scopes of claims, simultaneous trial and disposal may be appropriate to avoid conflicting decisions while preserving the separate issues for determination.

The Court distinguished the suits by their scope. O.S. No. 8/2021 was confined to the rights and claims of the children of the second wife, with no claim or dispute raised there by the children of the first wife. O.S. No. 130/2022 involved both branches and a broader cause of action, including claims and counterclaims between them.

The fact that the suits concerned substantially common properties did not, by itself, justify common evidence or a common trial. The trial court’s direction to try and dispose of the suits simultaneously was sufficient to avoid possible confusion and conflicting decisions.

The writ petition was disposed of, leaving in place the direction for simultaneous trial and disposal of the two suits.