Partly allowed

Smt. M.P. Sridevi v. Sri. R. Chandrappa

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2020WP/34465/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition setting aside an order rejecting applications to implead State Bank of India as a defendant. The Court held that where owners dispute title and rental payment rights, impleading the tenant is essential in the interest of justice to determine the rent creditor.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and rejected IA applications set aside; trial court directed to implead State Bank of India as proposed defendant.

Smt. M.P. Sridevi Vs Sri. R. Chandrappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

W.P. No.34465 OF 2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.34465 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. M.P. SRIDEVI AGED 33 YEARS W/O R.C. RAVINDRA RESIDING AT NO.1, 1^ST MAIN 1^ST CROSS ROAD, RAMANNA GARDERN RAMACHANDRAPURA, JALLAHALLI PO BANGALORE-560013

¶10

DULY REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER R.C. RAVINDRA S/O R.CHANDRAPPA ... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. R. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR

¶14

SRI.R.C. RAGHAVENDRA AGED 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.166 OPP. SSFCS FOOD DEPOT RAMACHANDRAPURA VILLAGE JALAHALLI PO BANGALORE-560013 ... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.4.2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XVIII ADDL.

¶17

W.P. No.34465 OF 2015

¶18

¶19

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.5534/2010 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.5534/2010 before this court seeking for quashing the common order dated 6.04.2015 passed by XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore on IA-5 and IA-6 rejecting both the said applications.

¶24

The facts leading to the dispute are as under:

¶25

2.1 The Suit schedule property viz. property bearing No.36/3 situated at 1^st cross road, Jogupalya main road, Cambridge road, Ulsoor, Bangalore is stated to belong to Smt.M.R.Prabhavati having been married to R.Chandrappa, plaintiff in O.S.No.5534 who had two children viz., R.C.Raghavendra and

¶26

W.P. No.34465 OF 2015

¶27

¶28

R.V.Ravindra. The defendant- Sridevi is wife of

¶29

R.C.Ravindra.

¶30

2.2 On purchase of the property construction was

¶31

put up on the said property and with an intention to amicably settle the property, a partition deed came to be executed on 24.7.2003 which is registered as document No.2102/2003-04 in Book-I stored in CD 46 whereunder whereunder 720 sq.ft of undivided interest in land and 1500 sq. ft of in built up area was allotted to the share of Smt.M.R.Prabhavathi, R.Chandrappa, R.C.Rghavendra and R.C.Ravindra each.

¶32

2.3 The said property is said to have been leased out in favour of State Bank of India.

¶33

2.4 Subsequent to the marriage of R.C.Ravindra with defendant i.e. petitioner herein the plaintiff is said to have executed a gift deed in favour of the defendant on 8.8.2007 gifting the undivided

¶34

W.P. No.34465 OF 2015

¶35

¶36

share equivalent to 720 sq.ft in favour of the defendant.

¶37

2.5 However, the said Chandrappa filed a suit in O.S.No.5534/2010 contending that the gift deed has been obtained by misrepresentation and sought for declaration of the said gift deed as null and void and for cancellation thereto. In the meanwhile, the said Chandrappa is stated to have expired leaving behind a power of attorney and a Will and in terms thereof R.C.Raghavendra has been bequeathed with 720 sq.ft undivided interest of R.Chandrappa.

¶38

The defendant who is the petitioner herein filed IA-5 seeking for impleading the tenant-SBI since the rentals were being enjoyed by the plaintiff during his lifetime despite gift deed having been executed in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶39

W.P. No.34465 OF 2015

¶40

¶41

IA-6 had been filed seeking for a direction to the said tenant-SBI to make payment of the rentals as regards the property gifted in favour of the defendant by the respondent.

¶42

Both the said applications came to be rejected on the ground that the dispute between the parties are yet to be resolved by the Civil Court, when the very gift deed is in question, the defendant cannot claim for receipt of rentals. More so, when the gift deed has been executed by the plaintiff who has questioned the very gift.

¶43

Sri.D.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that:

¶44

7.1 Gift deed has been executed and in force even today would entitle the petitioner to receive rentals from the tenants.

¶45

7.2 The respondent cannot receive the rentals to her detrimental and if respondent were to do the

¶46

W.P. No.34465 OF 2015

¶47

¶48

same, there is no way of the petitioner recovering

¶49

the said money from the respondent and as such, SBI being a proper and necessary party ought to have been impleaded in the proceedings and directions ought to have been issued to SBI to make payment of the rentals as regards the property gifted to the petitioner.

¶50

Per contra, Sri.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-R.C.Raghavendra would submit that:

¶51

7.1 Chandrappa had bequeathed the property in favour of R.C.Raghavendra and Chandrappa having questioned the gift deed and having contended that the gift deed was obtained by misrepresentation, if that statement having been given effect to and last testimony having been given effect to, it is Raghavendra who is entitled to rentals as regards to the property allotted to the share of Chandrappa.

¶52

W.P. No.34465 OF 2015

¶53

¶54

7.2 He submits that there are various proceedings are pending which between the parties which are required to be resolved. Pending disputes, rentals cannot be made payment to the petitioner.

¶55

7.3 He further submits that said Prabhavathi had filed eviction proceedings to vacate SBI and if SBI were to be evicted, the qusestion of impleading SBI does not arise or directing them to make payment of any rentals would render futile.

¶56

Heard Sri.D.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused papers.

¶57

The question that would arise for consideration is, whether a tenant could be made a party to the proceedings where the owners are at loggerheads as regards receipt of the title of the property ?

¶58

W.P. No.34465 OF 2015

¶59

¶60

Admittedly there is a dispute between two persons claming ownership over the property/land. Both the persons are claiming to be entitled to receipt of the rentals. In such a situation, it would be in the interest of justice that a tenant is made a party to the proceedings, more so since tenant would not know as to whom the rentals are to be paid or in the alternative the tenant cannot recover the rentals if the decree in the suit is a passed against the person in whose favour the tenant has been making payment of rentals. As such, in the interest of justice, IA-5 deserves to be allowed and tenant to be impleaded.

¶61

The reasons given by the trial court for rejection of IA-5 is only that the executor of the gift deed has questioned the gift deed, in my considered opinion would not be proper and correct. Hence, the order dated 6.4.2015 dismissing IA-5 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is set-aside. Consequently, IA-5 is

¶62

W.P. No.34465 OF 2015

¶63

¶64

allowed. The trial Court is directed to issue notice to SBI, proposed defendant on IA-5.

¶65

On the appearance of the said proposed tenant, the trial Court is directed to consider IA-5 on merits and pass orders as per the observations made above, as also IA-6 so as to safeguard the interest of all the parties. Orders passed on IA-6 is also set-aside for consideration on appearance of SBI.

¶66

In view thereof, the writ petition is partly allowed.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Smt. M.P. Sridevi v. Sri. R. Chandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M.P. Sridevi v. Sri. R. Chandrappa

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 Punit Sahni Vs Karnataka State Open University

Mohamad Asif Vs the State of Karnataka

Udya Prakasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Vs a N Moggannagowda

Sri Jodhraj Vs Smt Prabha Bharat Shah

Jodhraj Vs K S Padmanabha Rao