Allowed

Sri I N Muddappa v. Hanumanthappa

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2014WP/48111/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed writ petitions that sought to quash an order allowing a person claiming to be a legal representative to come on record unopposed in a civil suit involving disputed title. The court found the lower court erred in accepting the counsel’s “no objection” without an inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, the Writ Petitions were allowed, and the matter was remanded for inquiry.

Sri I N Muddappa Vs Hanumanthappa — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^th DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.48111 AND 49267 of 2012 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. I.N.Muddappa,

¶9

Aged 60 years, Son of Late Nanjappa, Residing at C/o.Sheenappa, Drill Teacher, SVP High School, Ittangur Village, Sarjapura Hobli,

¶10

Anekal Taluk.

¶11

Conglome Techno Constructions (P) Limited, represented by its Authorised Signatory, Having its office at No.33-44, 8^th Main, 4^th Cross, Sadashivanagar,

¶12

RMV Extension, Bangalore – 560 080. [petitioner no.2 impleaded as per court order dated 1.10.2013]

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(By Shri. S.K. Acharya, Advocate for Petitioner No.1 Shri.Dinesh S.Kadlas, Advocate for Petitioner No.2)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

Hanumanthappa, Since deceased by his Proclaiming proposed Legal representative

¶18

Narayanappa, Aged about 60 years, Ittangur Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. (respondent is served and unrepresented)

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

¶21

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 21.9.2010 passed in I.A.No.I in O.S.No.784/2006 filed by the respondent under Order XXII Rules 1 and 2 read with 151 of CPC, vide Annexure-A and also to quash the impugned order dated 3.3.2012 passed in I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.784/2006 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Anekal vide AnnexureA.

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The present petitioners are said to be the purchasers of

¶25

the suit property wherein the plaintiff had sought for a declaration of his title and had questioned the validity of the

¶26

¶27

sale deed in favour of these petitioners. During the course of the suit, the plaintiff is said to have died, according to the petitioner and the plaintiff has not left behind any legal heirs. However, a person claiming to be the adopted son of the deceased plaintiff had filed an application seeking to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. That having been opposed, the matter was set down for inquiry. However, yet another person claiming also to be the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff had filed an application, which was allowed unopposed. The Counsel for the deceased plaintiff having given his no objection to the application being allowed and the Court having allowed the application, the petitioners are before this court.

¶28

It is pointed out that the procedure in the event of any dispute as to a representative of either the plaintiff or the defendant if arises, the question has to be determined in terms of Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’, for brevity). In the

¶29

¶30

instant case, it is to be noticed that insofar as the application filed in the first instance by one of the persons claiming as the legal representative of the plaintiff, the matter was rightly posted for inquiry. The second application however, by another, having been allowed unopposed, only on the ground that the Counsel who was appearing for the deceased plaintiff had given his no objection, is sought to be questioned.

¶31

On the face of it, the illegality is plain. The court

¶32

could not have allowed the application when there was strong opposition as to any legal representative seeking to come on record as representing the plaintiff. The question would first have to be determined as to whether the plaintiff has left behind any legal representative and hence, the second application in I.A.4 should not have been allowed. Especially, since the Counsel for the deceased plaintiff was no longer in a position to participate in the proceedings, his “no objection” had no value.

¶33

Consequently, the petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to be

¶34

¶35

decided in the inquiry and to be considered along with the application that was already pending in inquiry and if it is found that there are no legal representatives to the plaintiff, then it is Order XXII Rule 4-A of the CPC, which would apply.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sri I N Muddappa v. Hanumanthappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri I N Muddappa v. Hanumanthappa

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 T Ramachandra Vs Sri Mandali Ranganna

National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs Sri Uc Krishnamurthy Bhat

Sri Rohith Reddy Vs Sri Chikkaramaiah

K.C.Nagarajappa Vs C.M.Mallikarjunachar

Sri P S Revanna Vs Sri v R Narasimharaju

Sri H G Basavanagouda Vs Sri B S Manjunatha Shetty