Yallappa S/O Hanamappa Tippanavar v. Smt.Lakkamma W/O Neelappa Tippanavar

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2019WP/108030/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC. The High Court rejected the petition, finding no error in the lower court's well-considered order which noted fraud as an issue requiring adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is rejected; the impugned order quashing the plaint is upheld.

Yallappa S/O Hanamappa Tippanavar Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.108030 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

YALLAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA TIPPANAVAR, AGE:43 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKAPUR TALUK & DIST:HAVERI.

¶8

BASAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA TIPPANAVAR, AGE:39 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKAPUR TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. DINESH. M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

SMT.LAKKAMMA W/O NEELAPPA TIPPANAVAR, AGE:56 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKAPUR TALUK & DIST:HAVERI.

¶13

BHRAMAPPA S/O NEELAPPA TIPPANAVAR AGE:41 YEARS,

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKAPUR TALUKA & DIST:HAVERI.

¶16

SMT.YALLAVVA W/O KARIYAPPA KAJJARI, AGE:36 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKAPUR TALUK & DIST:HAVERI. NOW AT BOMMANAKATTI TAL: HAVERI.

¶17

SMT.GANGAMMA W/O MARUTEPPA DODDAKURUBAR, AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKAPURA TALUK & DIST:HAVERI. NOW AT ANVERI, TAL:RANEBENNUR.

¶18

DILLEPPA S/O NEELAPPA TIPPANAVAR, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKAPUR, TALUK & DIST:HAVERI.

¶19

SMT. FAKKIRAVVA W/O PRAKASH BENAKANAHALLI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O CHIKKALINGADHALLI TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶20

SHIVVAPPA S/O SANNABHARAMAPPA TIPPANAVAR, AGE:56 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKAPUR TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

SMT.BASAVANNEMMA W/O MUDAKAPPA HANAKANAHALLI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAKAPUR TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶23

BHARAMAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA MUDALINGANNANAVAR, @ MUDNEKKANAVAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAHULLAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶24

RAMAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA MUDALINGANNANAVAR, @ MUDNEKKANAVAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAHULLAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶25

SMT.UDACHAMMA W/O ANANDAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAHULLAL, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶26

DYAMAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA WALI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KEREMATTAHALLI, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶27

NINGAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA DIDDIMANI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KEREMATTAHALLI,

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

TQ: & DIST: HAVERI.

¶30

GUDDAPPA S/O MALLAPPA TIPPANAVAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANAKAPUR, TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶31

MAILARAPPA S/O MALLAPPA TIPPANAVAR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANAKAPUR, TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶32

SMT.SAVAKKA W/O GUDDAPPA TIPPANAVAR AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANAKAPUR, TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶33

SMT.KAMALAVVA W/O NINGAPPA ALLAPUR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANAKAPUR, TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶34

SMT.FAKKIRAVVA W/O MAILARAPPA DEVAGIRI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANAKAPUR, TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶35

YALLAPPA S/O MALLAPPA TIPPANAVAR AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANAKAPUR,

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶38

BASAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA TIPPANAVAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANAKAPUR, TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶39

SMT.FAKKIRAVVA W/O PRAKASH BENAKANAHALLI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANAKAPUR, TALUK & DIST: HAVERI.

¶40

... RESPONDENTS

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:22.10.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT:HAVERI ON I.A.NO.XI IN O.S.NO.07/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-"H" AS NULL AND VOID.

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶45

2. Petitioners are before this Court being

¶46

aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri passed on

¶47

: 6 :

¶48

I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.7/2017 preferred under Order VII

¶49

Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶50

The application was preferred by the

¶51

defendants seeking rejection of the plaint on the premise that the plaint is hit by the principles of resjudicata in view of the fact that the plaintiffs had earlier preferred O.S.No.62/2015 and that the parties to the said suit are the parties presently before the Court in second suit i.e. O.S.No.7/2017 and that the said suit came to be withdrawn by filing a memo into the Court on 29.06.2015. A copy of the memo is produced as Annexure-H.

¶52

On perusal of the same, it reads that the plaintiffs desired to withdraw the suit as the matter has been amicably settled on the intervention of elders. The Trial Court, acting on the same, has been pleased to allow the memo and dismiss the suit as not pressed in the light of the memo dated 29.06.2015. The Trial

¶53

: 7 :

¶54

Court, while dismissing the suit as not pressed, has recorded the presence of plaintiffs 1, 2, 4 and 5. It is seen that the plaintiffs, while filing the second suit, have in para No.9 pleaded as follows:-

¶55

“9. ¸ÀzÀj ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀzÀj F ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀ zÁªÁzÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É F

¶56

£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è N.J¸ï. £ÀA 62/2015 £ÉÃzÀÝ£ÀÄß zÁR® ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°èAiÀÄ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ eÁjAiÀiÁzÀ vÀPÀët MAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ gÁf ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃªÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »jAiÀÄgÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀAvÉ PÉÃ¼ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÁ ºÉÃ½zÀÝgÀAzÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ N J¸ï £ÀA 62/2015 £ÉÃzÀÝ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 29/6/2015 £ÉÃ E¹é ¢ªÀ¸À ªÁ¥Á¸À vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ EvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥Á¸À vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ »jAiÀÄgÀÄ »¸Éì ¢¸Éì ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV zÁªÁzÀ 2 (DAiÀiï) £ÉÃ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß RjÃ¢UÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä M¦à ¢£ÁAPÀ 12/1/2016 £ÉÃ E¹é ¢ªÀ¸À ¸ÀAZÀUÁgÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À» ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ EvÀÄÛ DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ M§âjUÉÆ§âgÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ »¸Éì PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÃ½zÁUÀ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ »jAiÀÄjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ªÀiÁwUÉ ¨É¯É PÉÆqÀzÉÃ »¸Éì PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè CAvÁ ºÉÃ½zÀÝjAzÀ

¶57

: 8 :

¶58

ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁzÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è EgÀvÀPÀÌ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ PÁAiÉÄÝÃ²ÃgÀ »¸ÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÀåPÀë PÀ¨ÁÓ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ C¤ªÁAiÀÄðªÁV ªÉÄ|| £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀzÀgÀ F zÁªÉÃ zÁR® ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ¨sÁUÀ ©vÀÄÛ.”

¶59

From a reading of the above, the plaintiffs

¶60

have specifically alleged that the defendants 1 and 2, who had convinced them to withdraw the suit on the premise that they could get the matter settled in the presence of elders have, after withdrawal of the suit, not co-operated for the amicable resolution before the elders and it is alleged that they have played a fraud upon the plaintiffs. It is settled law that fraud vitiates all solemn acts, even assuming that the withdrawal of the earlier suit and institution of second suit by plaintiffs 1, 2, 4 and 5 is hit by the provisions of Order 20 Rule 4 of CPC and therefore, in the light of the explanation set out in para No.9, it is an issue, which requires to be adjudicated after affording opportunity to the parties. It also cannot be disputed that the evidence on the said

¶61

: 9 :

¶62

issue would determine the suit itself.

¶63

In the event the plaintiffs fail to demonstrate

¶64

the said fact, it is always open to the defendants to setup the plea. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the well considered order of the Trial Court. No error pointed out in the reasoning set out by the Court. Hence, petition stands rejected.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

yan

Yallappa S/O Hanamappa Tippanavar v. Smt.Lakkamma W/O Neelappa Tippanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yallappa S/O Hanamappa Tippanavar v. Smt.Lakkamma W/O Neelappa Tippanavar

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

Smt. Laxmibai W/O Parashuram Beedikar Vs Shri. Sadanand Gundu Beekikar

The Management of Nekrtc, Vs Sanganabasappa

Babu Maruti Bhosale Vs the Divisional Controller

S. K. Mudagal Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Smt. Eramma W/O Dodda Thippana Vs Smt. Mallamma W/O Late Dodda Basappa @ Basappa

Sri. Muga Basaveshwara S.T.Education Society (R) S Vs State of Karnataka