Dismissed

Sri.B.Shantilal v. Smt.Taradevi

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2021WP/12454/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 227 to quash a District Court order rejecting an application to transfer four pending civil suits for common trial. The High Court upheld the order, noting the suits relate to different properties and stages.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected; the order of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge denying transfer of suits was upheld.

Sri.B.Shantilal Vs Smt.Taradevi — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12454/2021 (GM/CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI.B.SHANTILAL S/O LATE BHAWARLAL AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶8

SRI B. VINOD KUMAR S/O LTE BHAWARLAL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶9

SUSHEELA BAI D/O LATE BHAWARALAL AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶10

AT PRESENT R/AT SGS ROYAL APT NO.81 F-1, 2^ND FLOOR RATAN VILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶11

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

SMT.TARADEVI

¶14

¶15

W/O M CHAINRAJ R/AT NO.6/1, RATNAVILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶16

SRI C. ARUN KUMAR S/O M CHAINRAJ GOTAWAT AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.6/1 RATNAVILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶17

SMT PADMA BAI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O M JAWAHARLAL R/AT NO.6/2 RATNAVILAS ROAD BASVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶18

AT PRESENT R/AT SHRAVANEE PARKVIEW FLAT NO.301, 3^RD FLOOR NATKALLAPPA CIRLCE BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶19

SRI M. MOHANLAL AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶20

SRI M GHEWSARCHAND AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶21

SRI M KUSHALRAJ AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶22

¶23

SRI M SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶24

SRI M ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶25

SRI M. VIJAY RAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶26

NO.3 TO 9 BEING CHILDRE OF LATE SRI. MANIKLAL AND SMT. BHIKI BAI

¶27

NO. 3 TO 9 ARE R/AT NO.6/4 RATNAVILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶28

LALITHA BAI D/O LATE BHAWARLAL

¶29

SARALA BAI D/O LATE BHAWARLAL

¶30

NO. 10 AND 11 ARE R/AT NO.6/3 RATNAVILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶31

SRI PRASANNA KUMAR S/O M. GHEWARCHAND AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶32

SRI PANKAJ KUMAR S/O M KUSHAL RAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶33

¶34

NO. 12 & 13 ARE R/AT NO.6/4 RATNAVILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶35

SRI AJAY KUMAR S/O M JAWAHARLAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶36

SRI AMITH KUMAR S/O M JAWAHARLAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶37

NO. 14 & 15 ARE R/AT NO.6/2 RATNAVILAS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶38

PRESENTLY R/AT SHARAVAEE PARKVIEW FLAT NO.301, 3^RD FLOOR NATKALLAPPA CIRCLE BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶39

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HITESH KUMAR JAIN., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND ALSO FOR R1; SMT. MEHRAJ SULTANA.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.D.N. PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R14 AND R15

¶40

NOTICE TO R4 TO R13 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 09.08.2021)

¶41

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED.1.3.2021 IN MISC NO.939/2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶43

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

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

The petitioners are unsuccessful in their application under Section 24 of CPC which is registered as Misc.No.939/2019 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (For short, 'the district Court '), and as such they have filed the present petition. The district Court has rejected the petitioners' application to withdraw and transfer the suit in O.S.No.25193/2015, O.S.No.8937/2010, O.S. No.7404/2011 and O.S. No.25947/2019 to a common

¶46

Court for common trial. The district Court has observed that while the suits in O.S.No.25193/2015 and O.S. No.7404/2011 are suits for partition, the suits

¶47

¶48

in O.S. No.8937/2010 and O.S.No.25947/2019 are for injunction, and these suits are not in respect of the same properties and the suits are at different stages. The district Court has opined that the transfer of these suits would lead to unnecessary complication and confusion in the trial of the cases.

¶49

2. The details of the four suits are as follows:

¶50

Suit	Nature of the suit	Property Details
No.
25193/2015 (CCH.75)	Partition	No.14/6, New No.6/1, Ratna Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru
8937/2010 (CCH.14)	Injunction	Municipal No.51/7, Main Road, Pukraj Layout, Adugodi, Bengaluru - 560 030
7404/2011 (CCH.45)	Partition	Municipal No.51/7, Main Road, Pukraj Layout, Adugodi, Bengaluru - 560 030
25947/2019 (CCH.29)	Injunction	No.14/6, New No.6/1, Ratna Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru

¶51

¶52

It is undisputed that while the suit in O.S.No.25193/2015 [a suit for partition] pertains to property in No.14/6, Ratna Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Benglauru, and the other suit for partition in O.S.No.7404/2011 is in respect of property bearing Municipal No.51/7, Main Road, Pukraj Layout, Adugodi, Bengaluru - 560 030. The suit in O.S.No.25947/2019 is a suit for injunction in respect of a portion of the property in Sy.No.14/6 [new No.6/1], situated on Ratna Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru and the suit in O.S.No.8937/2010 is also for injunction but in respect of property bearing No.51/7, Main Road, Pukraj Layout, Adugodi, Bengaluru - 560 030. As observed by the district Court, these suits do not relate to the same property/ies.

¶53

The subject matter of the suit for partition in O.S.No.25193/2015 is purchased by Smt. Taradevi (the plaintiff in O.S.No.25193/2015) and the subject matter

¶54

¶55

of the suit in O.S. No.25947/2019 is a different portion purchased by Smt. Taradevi along with another person under another sale deed dated 23.3.1979. The suit in O.S. No.25947/2019 is confined to the dispute over an alleged encroachment of a common passage. Smt. Taradevi admittedly has no interest in the properties in Sy.No.51/7, Main Road, Pukraj Layout, Adugodi, Bengaluru - 560 030 that is the subject matter of the other two suits in O.S. No. 8937/2017 and O.S. No.7404/2011. The parties to these suits are also different.

¶56

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court must opine that the questions that will have to be decided in these suits will be different, and as rightly pointed out by the district Court if the suits are withdrawn and transferred for common trial, there could only be confusion. Further, it would only be reasonable to opine that the test for transfer of the suits

¶57

¶58

i.e., the similarities in the Issues for consideration is not

¶59

satisfied. Hence, the petition stands rejected.

¶60

SD/JUDGE

¶61

Sri.B.Shantilal v. Smt.Taradevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.B.Shantilal v. Smt.Taradevi

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

Mr.Hemanth M K Vs M.S.Raghu

Sri.S.Kandaswammy Vs Smt.Shazia Tabassum

Smt. Asmathunnisa Vs Sri. Jameel Ahmed Khan

Sri H Mallesha Vs Sri Somashekar

Sunil Chajed Vs Hp Software Company Pvt. Ltd.

Shankarappa M v Vs Sri.K.Narayanappa