Disposed

Ms v. Jayalakshmi v Sri Shyamlal R Chabria

Karnataka HC25 Aug 2014WP/47146/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, plaintiffs in an ejectment suit, challenged an order directing return of plaint due to amended written statement questioning plaintiffs' title. The High Court directed lower court not to act under Section 16 of KSCC Act and to proceed to answer issues raised by defendants regarding landlord title.

What did the court decide?

Directed lower court not to return plaint under Section 16 of KSCC Act and to proceed to answer questions raised by defendants.

Ms v Jayalakshmi Vs Sri Shyamlal R Chabria — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 47146 of 2013 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Ms. V. Jayalakshmi, Daughter of Sri. M. Venkatalingamurthy, Aged about 25 years,

¶9

Ms. V. Shruthi, Daughter of Sri. M. Venkatalingamurthy, Aged about 23 years,

¶10

Ms. V. Vinutha, Daughter of Sri. M. Venkatalingamurthy, Aged about 18 years,

¶11

All are residing at No.29, 5^th Main Road, Srikanteshwaranagar, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 096.

¶12

…PETITIONERS (By Shri. T. Sheshagiri Rao, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Sri. Shyamlal R Chabria,

¶15

¶16

Son of Rm Chand Tulasi Das, Aged about 57 years, Residing at No.33, Central Street, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020. Also carrying on business in The name of M/s. Pooja Electronics, No.9/2, Ground Floor, Muniswamappa Lane, S.P.Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(By Shri. R. Pushpahasa, Advocate)

¶19

¶20

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 11.9.2013 one passed by the XVI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, on the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC., by the respondent in S.C.No.795/2012 found at Annexure-G and pass appropriate orders to dismiss the application one filed by the respondent, found at Annexure-E.

¶21

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The present petitioners are said to be the plaintiffs in a

¶24

suit for ejectment, which is pending before the Court of Small

¶25

Causes. The defendants had initially questioned the competence of the plaintiffs to file a suit on the footing that

¶26

¶27

they were not aware of the transfer of the ownership of the property and had vaguely disputed the title of the petitioners. However, at the stage of evidence, when the petitioners produced the relevant documents in support of their case, the defendant is said to have discovered that the original landlord namely, Mariappa was not the owner of the property, but it was his wife Lakshamma, who was the owner of the property. Therefore, the defendants sought to file an application for amendment of the written statement to contend that the defendants had proceeded under a wrong impression that the Mariappa was his landlord and later it was discovered that it is Lakshamma and the defendants were totally unaware of the legal representatives of Lakshamma and whether the plaintiffs would have derived any title at all. Since the plaintiffs had proceeded on the basis that they are the grand children of Mariappa, the original owner of the property and this aspect having been raised at the time when the matter was posted for

¶28

¶29

defendants’ evidence and the court below having allowed the same, the petitioners are before this court.

¶30

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would draw

¶31

attention to Section 16 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KSCC Act’, for brevity) and would point out that there is danger of the court below returning the plaint on the pretext that the title of the plaintiffs has now been questioned.

¶32

It is made clear that since the defendants have chosen to

¶33

raise a contention disputing the ownership of the landlord, which is a bar under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the court below shall not proceed to return the plaint in terms of Section 16 of the KSCC Act, merely because the written statement has been amended to raise a plea questioning the title of the plaintiffs. That by itself would not be a ground to return the plaint at this stage of the proceedings, since the plaintiffs seeks to sustain their case on the basis of an unregistered document, which requires to be established on its merit.

¶34

¶35

Accordingly, the court below shall proceed to answer

¶36

the questions that have been raised by the defendants and will

¶37

not act in terms of Section 16 of the KSCC Act.

¶38

With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Ms v. Jayalakshmi v Sri Shyamlal R Chabria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms v. Jayalakshmi v Sri Shyamlal R Chabria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Raghupathy Vs Smt. Saraswathamma

Sri Vijay P Shah Vs Sri M M Mahesh

H.P.Devaraju Vs Smt.Puttathayamma

Sri Ananda Nayari Vs Sri Seetharama Nayari

Shri B T Bore Gowda Vs Shri T C Lobo

Sri K S Srirangaraju Vs Smt M Rajamma