The High Court quashed the lower court order allowing impleadment of legal heirs in a partition suit, holding that their claim in an independent suit creates no sufficient cause to complicate the present proceedings.
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order of the Additional City Civil Judge allowing impleadment was set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.1635 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Abbaiah, Son of Late Puttappa, Aged about 63 years, Residing at No.24, Venkatappa Lane, Doddamavalli, Bangalore – 560 004.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. Sharath S Gowda, Advocate)
AND:
Both are residing at Bellanduru Village,
2
Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore – 560 037.
…RESPONDENTS
(Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are served and unrepresented)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 6.12.2013 passed by XXII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-7) in O.S.No.2119/2003 on I.A.No.1/2012 in allowing the application filed by the respondents under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC vide Annexure-A.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The
respondents are served and remain unrepresented. The petitioner is said to be the plaintiff in a pending suit for partition. The defendants 2 to 7are brothers and 8 to 10 are sisters of the deceased. Defendants 1 and 2 had filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’, for brevity) seeking to implead the proposed defendants as Defendants 11 to 15. It was the contention of the said
3
defendants 1 and 2 that the proposed defendants were also laying claim to item no.1 of the suit schedule property as the legal heirs of the vendor of the said property, which had been purchased by the father of the plaintiff, in a suit in O.S.No.5766/2009 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore and they were seeking partition and separate possession including the said item no.1 of the suit property and therefore had alleged that their presence in the present suit was very much necessary and had accordingly filed the application. The court below has allowed the application on the ground that the property is found to be one and the same in the present the suit and the suit said to have been filed by the legal representatives of the vendor of the suit property. It is that which is sought to be questioned in the present proceedings.
possession, when there is little dispute between the parties as to item no.1 of the suit property having been purchased by the father of the plaintiff, the incidental issue that there is a claim
4
set up by the legal heirs of the vendor of the said property in a separate suit, would be sufficient cause to make the plaintiffs therein as the defendants in the present suit, is inexplicable. If such defendants have filed an independent suit laying claim to the said property, it is for them to establish the same in that suit. There need not be a further enlargement of the scope of the present suit in addressing the claim of those defendants as well. It would merely create further complication and hence the court below was not justified in allowing the application when nothing turns on the claim made by the said defendants, who are prosecuting their claim in an independent suit. Their presence in this suit is not necessary and certainly at the instance of defendants 1 and 2.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned
order is set aside.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court was justified in allowing an application to implead other heirs in a partition suit when they are already prosecuting a separate independent suit.
Whether the existence of a separate suit by claimants constitutes a sufficient cause to enlarge the scope of the present partition suit.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Abbaiah
Smt. Thimmakka
Sri. Muniswamy
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
