Allowed

Sri. K. Subbarao S/O K. Suryanarayana v. Sri. Vadra Shivappa S/O Late Vadra Sunkappa

Karnataka HC27 Feb 2019WP/103709/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition quashing the Principal Civil Judge, Ballari's order rejecting an interlocutory application. The court held that the transferee of the suit property, having acquired title, is entitled to come on record as the original plaintiff to prosecute the suit.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 31.03.2018 passed in I.A. No.XI in O.S. No.392/2013 is set aside; application remitted to Trial Court.

Sri. K. Subbarao S/O K. Suryanarayana Vs Sri. Vadra… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.103709/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI. K. SUBBARAO S/O K. SURYANARAYANA AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: WARD NO.11, VIDYA NAGAR, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

SRI. VADRA SHIVAPPA S/O LATE VADRA SUNKAPPA AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST & MERCHANT, R/O: SHRINIVAS CAMP, LAKSHMIPURAM POST, SHIRUGUPPA ROAD, DIST: BALLARI.

¶13

SMT. BADANAHATTI VADDARA MAREMMA, W/O. LATE BADANAHATTI VADDARA THIMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

¶14

GANGAMMA D/O. THIMAPPA, W/O. SANNA THIMAPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. BALLARI.

¶15

GOURAMMA D/O. THIMAPPA

¶16

¶17

W/O. NAGAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. HAVERI.

¶18

SRI.ANJINAPPA S/O LATE BADANAHATTI VADDARA THIMMAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: LAKSHMIPURAM POST-583116, VAI KAMPLI YEMMIGANUR, TQ & DIST: BALLARI.

¶19

SRI.VADRA BASAVARAJ S/O LATE BADANAHATTI VADDARA THIMMAPPA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: LAKSHMIPURAM POST-583116, VAI KAMPLI YEMMIGANUR, TQ & DIST: BALLARI.

¶20

SRI.HANUMANTHA S/O LATE BADANAHATTI VADDARA THIMMAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: LAKSHMIPURAM POST-583116, VAI KAMPLI YEMMIGANUR, TQ & DIST: BALLARI.

¶21

SRI.HULUGAPPA S/O LATE BADANAHATTI VADDARA THIMMAPPA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: LAKSHMIPURAM POST-583116, VAI KAMPLI YEMMIGANUR, TQ & DIST: BALLARI.

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI ON I.A. NO.XI IN O.S. NO.392/2013 MARKED AT ANNEXURE – A.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the order to follow.

¶29

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari dated 31.03.2018 passed on I.A. No.XI preferred under order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC, whereby the Court was pleased to reject the interlocutory application of the petitioner praying to come on record as the plaintiff.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that his vendor purchased the suit property from the original plaintiff and the petitioner purchased it from the vendee in 2016 during the pendency of the suit and hence he made the instant application to come on record as the original plaintiff, has divested himself of the right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. That the Trial Court on an erroneous appreciation of the application

¶31

¶32

has rejected the said application, after having noted that the petitioner herein has indeed acquired interest in the suit schedule property. The Trial Court appears to have misread the principles of dominus litis and has proceeded to hold that the prerogative of arraying of the parties would be that of the plaintiff alone.

¶33

It is not the case that the plaintiff has resisted the application. That being the admitted position, the reliance on the principles of dominus litis in the opinion of this Court is misplaced. The Trial Court has clearly observed that the petitioner has acquired title and interest in the suit schedule property through the plaintiff. That being the admitted position, in the opinion of this Court, the order impugned stands vitiated on that count alone. The burden of proving the case as canvassed by the plaintiff, now rests on the petitioner who is the applicant as he has now stepped into the shoes of the plaintiff, by the acquisition of title in the suit property. That being requirement in law and the original plaintiff having divested himself of the right,

¶34

¶35

title and interest in the suit schedule property, the petitioner is entitled to come on record as plaintiff and further prosecute the suit as the original plaintiff.

¶36

The plaintiff having divested himself of the title is unlikely to effectively prosecute the suit and if the petitioner is left to the mercy of the plaintiff who has alienated and conveyed his rights, there is all likelihood that the petitioner would be put to serious hardship and suffer irreparable loss.

¶37

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31.03.2018 passed in I.A. No.XI in O.S. No.392/2013 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari is set aside.

¶38

I.A. No.XI preferred under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration in the light of the above observations, petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Rsh

Sri. K. Subbarao S/O K. Suryanarayana v. Sri. Vadra Shivappa S/O Late Vadra Sunkappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. Subbarao S/O K. Suryanarayana v. Sri. Vadra Shivappa S/O Late Vadra Sunkappa

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

Mallappa Chalwadi Vs the Registrar

Shri. Venkappa Laxmappa Pilli Vs the Returning Officer

Sri.Someshwara Farmers Co-Operative Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Popular Constructions Vs Prasanna v Ghotage

Sri Ganapati Rama Naik Vs Sri Subray Rama Naik

Basasavaraj S/O Mallarappa Kulkarni Vs the Deputy Commissioner