Partly allowed

Dheeraj v. M S Gopala Reddy

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2021MFA/4132/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal set aside the First Appellate Court's order rejecting an application to implead legal representatives as legatees under a disputed will. The High Court held that Order XXII Rule 5 CPC mandates an enquiry rather than a summary rejection when a will's execution is contested.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order on I.A.Nos.16 & 17 set aside; matter remitted to First Appellate Court to conduct enquiry under Order XXII Rules 5 & 10 CPC within six months.

Dheeraj Vs M S Gopala Reddy — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 1 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4316/2021 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4132/2021 (CPC)

¶7

M.F.A.NO.4316/2021:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT SHARADAMMA

¶10

W/O SRINIVASA REDDY

¶11

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶12

R/AT AIMAREDDYHALLI VILLAGE

¶13

KASABA HOBLI

¶14

CHINTAMANI TALUK

¶15

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125

¶16

ANJANEYA REDDY

¶17

S/O NEELAKANTA REDDY AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

¶18

MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT SHYAMALAMMA W/O NEELAKANTA REDDY

¶19

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶20

RANGANATHA REDDY S/O RAMA REDDY AGED 7 YEARS

¶21

MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT SAVITHRAMMA W/O RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶22

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 2 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶23

APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE R/OF CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶26

M.F.A.NO.4132/2021:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

DHEERAJ S/O BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS MINOR BY GUARDIAN AND NATURAL MOTHER SMT. ANITA, W/O BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶29

KUM.SANJANA D/O BABU REDDY

¶30

AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶31

BOTH APPELLANTS ARE R/OF MALAPALLI VILLAGE CHINTAMANI – 563 125

¶32

…APPELLANTS

¶33

(BY SRI H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

M.S. GOPALA REDDY S/O SRINVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/OF MALAPPALLI VILLAGE CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 563 125

¶36

M.S.RAJESH STATED TO BE ADOPTED SON OF DODDAPPODU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT MALAPPALLI VILLAGE CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125

¶37

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 3 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶38

G.VENKATAREDDY S/O LATE DODDAREDDY’S GOPALAREDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶39

3(A) SMT DEVAMMA W/O LATE G.VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶40

3(B) SMT SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE G.VENKATAREDDY

¶41

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶42

3(C) SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶43

3(C)(A)SMT ANITHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶44

3(C)(B)BABU B AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶45

3(C)(C)ANIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶46

3(C)(D)PRABHU

¶47

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶48

ALL ARE R/AT MALAPALLI VILLAGE CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125

¶49

DODDAPPODU SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶50

4(A) NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE DODDA APPODU R/AT MALAPPALLI VILLAGE CHINTAMANI TALUK 563 125

¶51

G. SRIRAMAREDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶52

5(A) MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE SRIRAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶53

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 4 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶54

5(B) SMT M.S.LAKSHMI D/O LATE SRIRAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶55

5(C) SMT M.S.NAGAMANI D/O LATE SRIRAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶56

5(D) M.S.ERAPPAREDDY S/O LATE SRIRAMAREDDY ALL ARE R/AT N.R. EXTENSION CHINTAMANI TOWN – 563 125

¶57

G. SRINIVASAREDDY S/O LATE DODDAREDDY’S GOPALAREDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT MALAPPALLI VILLAGE CHINTAMANI TOWN – 563 125

¶58

CHIKKAVENKATAMMA W/O VEERAPPAREDDY R/AT IMAREDDIHALLI VILLAGE CHINTAMANI TALUK – 563 125

¶59

BACHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶60

8(A) VENKATAREDDY S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶61

8(B) VENKATESH S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶62

8(C) SUMAN S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶63

8(D) NARAYANASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶64

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 5 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶65

8(D)(I)SHANTHAMMA

¶66

W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY

¶67

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶68

8(D)(II)MANJULA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶69

8(D)(III)VINOD

¶70

S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶71

8(D)(IV)SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶72

8(D)(V)SANTOSH S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶73

LRS 8(D)(I) TO 8(D)(V) ARE R/OF GOPALLI VILLAGE NANDIGANAHALLI POST MURUGAMALLA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK – 563 125

¶74

8(E) LAKSHMANA REDDY S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT ANJANI EXTENSION CHINTAMANI TOWN – 563 125

¶75

D.K. SHANKARAREDDY S/O LATE D.KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT DODDAPALLI VILLAGE RONUR HOBLI SRINIVASPUR TALUK – 563 155

¶76

MRS. LATHA D/O SRINVASAREDDY W/O VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.6, 2^ND CROSS SEENAPPA LAYOUT

¶77

M.F.A.No.4316/2021

¶78

6 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶79

HENNUR VILLAGE KALYANA NAGARA POST BANGALORE – 560 043

¶80

M.S. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O SRINIVASAREDDY W/O RAMESH YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT 98, KENDRIYA VIHAR YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064

¶81

M.S. LAKSHMISHREE D/O SRINVASAREDDY W/O RAM J AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.17163, FAIRLIC ROAD SAN DIEDGO, CALIFORNIA USA – 22434. …RESPONDENTS (COMMON)

¶82

(BY SRI K.S.RAMESH , ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & 2; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.12.2021, NOTICE TO R3 TO R12 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶83

THESE MFAs ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(l) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.16 & 17 IN R.A.NO.121/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, SITTING AT CHINTAMANI.

¶84

THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶85

J U D G M E N T

¶86

These two appeals arise out of common order dated 14.06.2021 on I.A.Nos.16 and 17 in R.A.No.121/2012 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, sitting at Chintamani.

¶87

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 7 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶88

By the impugned orders, the First Appellate Court has rejected the applications of the appellants under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC to come on record as legal representatives of deceased Lakshmana Reddy namely respondent No.2 in R.A.No.121/2012.

¶89

One Gopala Reddy had five sons by name Srinivasa Reddy, Lakshmana Reddy, Venkata Reddy, Doddappodu, Srirama Reddy and one daughter by name Chikkavenkatamma. Sriramareddy filed O.S.No.1/1970 before Civil Judge, Chintamani against his father Gopala Reddy and other brothers for partition and separate possession of his share. The suit was contested by Venkata Reddy and Lakshmana Reddy on the ground that they had separated from the family taking some of the subject matters of O.S.No.1/1970, in 1962 itself, therefore, they were not partible.

¶90

The Court partly decreed O.S.No.1/1970 and dismissed the suit with regard to which Lakshmanareddy and Venkatareddy clamed independent rights. Against that judgment, Sriramareddy filed RFA

¶91

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 8 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶92

No.155/1978 before this Court. On enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court, RFA No.155/1978 was transferred to District Court, Kolar and renumbered as R.A.No.19/1990. In R.A.No.19/1990, the parties entered into a compromise. Recording the compromise, a decree was passed accordingly and R.A.No.19/1990 was disposed of.

¶93

Respondent No.1 S/o Srinivasareddy and respondent No.2 claiming to be adopted son of Doddappodu filed O.S.No.57/1999 before Senior Civil Judge, Chintamani claiming that the compromise entered into in R.A.No.19/1990 was out come of fraud played by Venkatareddy and Lakshmanareddy and the said compromise does not bind them. That suit came to be dismissed on 14.06.2012.

¶94

Against the said judgment and decree, respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred R.A.No.121/2012 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura sitting at Chintamani. In that appeal, Venkatareddy was the first respondent and Lakshmana

¶95

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 9 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶96

Reddy was the second respondent. Pending the appeal, Lakshmana Reddy died on 02.11.2019 and Venkatareddy died on 27.12.2015.

¶97

The appellants filed I.A.Nos.16 and 17 claiming that Lakshmanareddy had executed two separate Wills dated 11.12.2017 in favour of the aforesaid appellants and they sought to come on record as legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2Lakshmanareddy. The present respondent Nos.1 and 2 contested those applications disputing the execution of the Wills etc. The First Appellate Court without holding an enquiry as required under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC heard the parties on the applications and by the impugned order rejected the said applications.

¶98

The First Appellate Court held that what was to be decided in the appeal was whether the judgment and decree in O.S.No.57/1999 was outcome of fraud and for that purpose, the present appellants are not necessary parties. The First Appellate Court further held that impleading the appellants in R.A.No.121/2012

¶99

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 10 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶100

unnecessarily widens the scope of the appeal and complicates the question involved in the case. The First Appellate Court further held that whether the applicants are legatees and whether Lakshmanareddy had executed Will need not be gone into the case.

¶101

The appellants claimed to be the legal representatives of deceased Lakshmanareddy who was respondent No.2 in R.A.No.121/2012.

¶102

Section 2 (11) of CPC defines legal representative as a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased.

¶103

Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC which deals with procedure in case of assignments before final order in the suit states that in the case of an assignment or transfer of any interest in the subject matter of the suit, during the pendency of the suit, proceedings shall be continued against such assignee on whom the interest of the deceased party has devolved.

¶104

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 11 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶105

Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC provides for impleading of legal representative of the deceased defendant which applies to the respondents in appeal also in case cause of action survives against such legal representatives.

¶106

This Court in K.Shankarappa Vs. K.G.Gangadharaiah¹ held that the legatees under a Will becomes intermeddles of the estate of the deceased party and therefore, they come within the definition of legal representatives.

¶107

When the execution of Will is disputed, what shall be the procedure to implead the legatees of the alleged Will is the question. For that, Order XXII Rule 5 provides the procedure which reads as follows:

¶108

“ 5.Determination of question as to

¶109

legal representative.- Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court :

¶110

1 AIR 2001 KAR 203

¶111

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 12 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶112

Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court , that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefore, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.”

¶113

[Emphasis supplied]

¶114

In view of Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC, when execution of the Will is disputed, the Court shall hold an enquiry as contemplated under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC. For that purpose, the Appellate Court may either itself record evidence and record the findings or remit the records to the trial Court for the purpose of recording evidence and finding on that. But the Appellate Court cannot reject the application summarily without holding any enquiry or recording the finding. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The appeals are allowed.

¶115

The impugned order dated 14.06.2021 on I.A.Nos.16 and 17 passed by II Additional District &

¶116

M.F.A.No.4316/2021 13 C/W M.F.A.No.4132/2021

¶117

Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, sitting at Chintamani is hereby set aside.

¶118

The matters are remitted to the First Appellate Court to reconsider the applications in accordance with Order XXII Rules 5 and 10 of CPC.

¶119

Since original proceedings are of the year 1999, the First Appellate Court shall do the aforesaid exercise as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both parties shall co-operate for disposal of the applications.

¶120

In view of disposal of main matters, pending I.As. stood disposed of.

¶121

Sd/JUDGE

¶122

pgg

Dheeraj v. M S Gopala Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj v. M S Gopala Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Deputy Director Vs M/S Classic Industries

Sri Tulasidas R C Vs Smt Sulochana

Sri Hanumantharayappa Vs Sri Channappa

Smt Ramakka Vs Sri G G Vasanth

Smt. Sharadamma Vs M S Gopala Reddy

Smt K N Kamala Vs Sri Manoj Kumar B