Allowed

J S Rajanna v. Susheela

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2021WP/10061/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging an impugned order rejecting an application for impleadment. The court quashed the lower court order, permitted petitioners to come on record as defendants in a pending partition suit, and directed disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order rejecting impleadment; permitted petitioners to come on record as parties defendants; directed civil court to dispose of suit within six months.

J S Rajanna Vs Susheela — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10061/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

J S RAJANNA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶8

PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶9

J S RAMANNA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶10

CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶11

PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O JANIGERE VILLAGE THIPPASANDRA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK - 562 131.

¶12

RAMAKKA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH W/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/A HARALEKERE VILLAGE SINGEHALLI POST

¶13

¶14

MAYASANDRA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU - 572 213.

¶15

KARIYAMMA D/O SANJEEVAIAH W/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A BHIMANAPURA VILLAGE KEMPANAHALLI POST HUTRIDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU - 572 126.

¶16

LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O JANIGERE VILLAGE THIPPASANDRA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK - 562 131.

¶17

THIMMAMMMA D/O LATE SANJEEVAIAHA W/O PUTTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A ACCHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE SANTEBACHAHALLI HOBLI K R PETE TALUK MANDYA - 571 436.

¶18

... PETITIONERS

¶19

(By SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND :

¶21

SUSHEELA D/O HANUMAIAH MAJOR,

¶22

¶23

VARALAKSHMI D/O HANUMAIAH MAJOR

¶24

BOTH 1 & 2 R/AT MAHADESHWARANAGAR, VISHWANEEDAM POST SUNKADAKATTE MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶25

RADHAMMA W/O PUTTASWAMAIAH MAJOR R/A JANIGERE VILLAGE THIPPASANDRA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK.

¶26

GANGAVEERAIAH S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH MAJOR,

¶27

SHASHIKALA D/O GANGAVEERAIAH W/O KALLE GOWDA MAJOR,

¶28

SHIVAKUMARA S/O GANGAVEERAIAH MAJOR

¶29

R3 TO R5 ARE R/AT HODAGATTA VILLAGE YALAGALAVADI HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DIST.

¶30

GOWRAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH MAJOR, R/A 34/A, KANAKANAPALYA

¶31

¶32

JAYANAGARA, 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU.

¶33

... RESPONDENTS

¶34

(By SRI.K. MURTHY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2020;

¶35

SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5 & R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 26.07.2021; NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH )

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 23.10.2018, PASSED ON IA-14, FILED U/OR. 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, IN OS 84/2014, BY THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MAGADI, VIDE ANNEXURE-A; CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA-14, FILED U/OR. 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, IN OS 84/2014, BY THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MAGADI, BY PERMITTING THE APPLICANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS TO COME ON RECORD AS DEFENDANTS, IN OS NO.84/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MAGADI.

¶37

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

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - contesting respondents are heard for final disposal. The petitioners, whose application in I.A. No.14 under Order

¶40

¶41

VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S. No.84/2004 [old OS

¶42

No.435/2007] on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi [for short 'Civil Court'] is rejected by the impugned order dated 23.10.2018, have preferred this writ petition.

¶43

The petitioners' case is that their ancestor, Sri Sanjeevaiah, was the owner of the land measuring 5 acres 7 guntas in Sy. No.7 of Janigare Village, Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. Sri Sanjeevaiah had agreed to transfer certain portions of this land in favour of his paternal uncle, but otherwise he continued to hold indisputable title to the remaining extent. Sri. Sanjeevaiah died on 13.02.2017. A portion of this land in Sy. No.7, measuring 2 acres 34 guntas is included in the suit for partition commenced by the contesting respondents though neither they nor any of the family members including their propositus, Sri. Chikkahanumegowda could assert any interest in

¶44

¶45

the land. Their interest in the subject land would be affected, if there is any decree in favour of the parties to the suit. As such, they have filed their application for impleadment.

¶46

The Civil Court has rejected the petitioners’ application on the ground that though the petitioners claim title through Sri. Sanjeevaiah and from Smt. Radhamma, no document has been produced to establish title either in Sri. Sanjeevaiah or Smt. Radhamma. The revenue records for the subject land are entered in the year 2015-16 and the reason for this revenue entry is not supported by any document. Therefore, the applicants would not be necessary parties.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the orders by the concerned Taluka office as per Annexure-G, submits that one Ramakka, wife of

¶48

¶49

Sanjeeva Gowda was the original owner and on her demise, the revenue entries were mutated in favour of the petitioners' father, Sri. Sanjeevaiah. The petitioners' father is Smt. Radhamma’s grandson, and Smt. Radhamma died leaving behind only their father as the descendant.

¶50

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that these respondents’ propositus, Sri. Chikkahanumegowda, acquired this property from his father, Sri. Hanumaiah who in turn succeeded to the property from Sri. Sanjeevaiah. The applicants, though not related to their ancestor, Sri. Sanjeevaiah, are taking advantage of the fact that the entries in the revenue records for the subject land are similar to their father’s name.

¶51

It is obvious from the rival submissions that disputed questions of fact such as the identity of the

¶52

¶53

person whose name is found in the revenue records for the subject land would come up for consideration, and based on the decision on which of the parties to the suit are related to Sri. Sanjeevaiah whose name is found in the revenue records for the subject land, a decree will have to be drawn. If the petitioners can succeed in establishing that the entries in the revenue records for the subject land are rightfully entered in the name of their father, there cannot be a decree in favour of the other parties to the proceedings. Therefore, petitioners would be necessary parties to the suit. The Civil Court has erred in not considering material aspects and that has resulted in an irregular order.

¶54

7. The suit was filed initially in the Civil Court

¶55

at Ramanagara in the year 1977 and later transferred to the Civil Court at Magadi. The suit is pending for about twenty five years. It would, therefore be necessary to direct the Civil Court to take every such measure as

¶56

¶57

would be necessary for expeditious disposal of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners is categorical that the petitioners will file their written statement within two weeks from the date of their first appearance before the Civil Court and they shall co-operate with the Civil Court in expeditious disposal of the suit. Therefore the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

[a] The petition is allowed;

¶60

[b] The impugned order dated 23.10.2018 passed on I.A. No.14 filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10[2] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in O.S. No.84/2014 is quashed, and the application is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to come on record as party defendants in the suit in O.S. No.84/2014.

¶61

¶62

[c] The civil Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit within an outer limit of six [6] months from the date of receipt of this order;

¶63

SD/JUDGE

¶64

AN/-

J S Rajanna v. Susheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J S Rajanna v. Susheela

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

K. v. Sreedhara Variyar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Girish John Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sainath Education Trust Vs Ramyashree K

Parvathamma Vs the Chief Secretry, Government of Karnataka

Sri K Rajashekharaiah Vs Smt Aruna