The High Court quashed a lower court order adding heirs as defendants without verifying the deceased's bachelor status, holding that enlarging defendants based on unverified class-II heir claims was erroneous.
The petition allowed and the order admitting R-2 to R-9 as defendants is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
W.P.No.14081/2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S H.M.T. EMPLOYEES HOUSE, BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: THE COMMON SERVICES DIVISION BUILDING HMT POST, BANGALORE-560031 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT K.C. GOVINDAIAH S/O CHINNAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.* K. LATHA W/O LATE BALAJI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.72, 3RD MAIN 4TH CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT AUDUGODI, BANGALORE-560030.
2
THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 9 ARE RESIDINT AT NO.127, 2ND MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT AUDUGODI, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560 030.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE SERVED ON R2 TO R9)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA ON I.A. FILED BY THE R-2 TO R-9 HEREIN UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.1757/2009 IN SOFAR AS PERMITTING THE R-2 TO 9 HEREIN TO COME ON RECORD (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE IA FILED BY THE R-2 TO 9 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in
O.S.No.1757/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala (for short, ‘ the civil Court’ ), has impugned the civil Court’s order dated 10.12.2019. The civil Court by this impugned order has allowed the application filed by the second to ninth respondents under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead themselves as defendants.
O.S.No.1757/2009 for specific performance relying upon an
4
agreement to the sale deed dated 28.08.2006 against the executant -Sri.Balaji. On the demise of Sri. Balaji on 10.01.2018, the first respondent is permitted to come on record. Subsequently, the second to ninth respondents have filed their application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC contending that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri.Balaji and therefore they are necessary parties. The affidavit filed in support of this application is sworn to by the ninth respondent, and the material part of the affidavit reads as under.
“’I state that the plaintiff Society has filed these suits against my brother for specific performance of the several agreements. This being the case, my brother and Defendant- Balaji had died intestate on 10.01.2018 leaving behind brothers and sisters as his class-II legal heirs. I state that cause of action survives against the defendant and his legal representatives are requires to be brought on record. Therefore, we have filed the accompanying application seeking to come on record as his legal representatives of the sole defendant. We have produced family tree of sole defendant, who is our brother died intestate, who was unmarried and issueless”.
5
the premise that according to the second to ninth respondents, Sri. Balaji was a bachelor and therefore, they as class-II legal heirs are entitled to come on record to contest the suit. The civil Court has also opined that at this stage, it cannot enter into a debate on whether Sri.Balaji died a bachelor or was married to first respondent. It is seen that these respondents have not even stated in their affidavit that Sri. Balaji died a bachelor; if these respondents do not even state in their affidavit that the deceased had died a bachelor, the civil Court could not have, as rightly pointed out by Sri. Prakash B N, the learned counsel for the petitioner, allowed the application to enlarge the scope of enquiry in a suit for a specific performance.
6
invalidation of the impugned order will not foreclose any remedy that would be available to the second to ninth respondents otherwise. Therefore, the following;
ORDER
SD/- JUDGE
LRS, RU
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil court correctly allowed legal representatives to come on record without establishing the deceased was unmarried.
Whether the High Court should intervene in a specific performance suit where the list of defendants was enlarged based on unverified status of heirs.
Whether the dismissal of the application to add necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was justified as the facts were disputed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S H.M.T. EMPLOYEES HOUSE, BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
SMT. K. LATHA
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA L
SMT. ANJAMMA
SRI. VIJAYABHASKAR
SRI. PRAKASH V
B M SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
