Allowed

Sri Papanna v. Sri Mahalingappa

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2021WP/3009/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench of the High Court of Karnataka set aside the order admitting respondents as parties to an injunction suit on the ground that the plaintiff chose his opponents. The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were rejected from the suit array.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order allowing entry of respondents to the suit is set at naught; respondents' application is rejected.

Sri Papanna Vs Sri Mahalingappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3009 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PAPANNA

¶9

S/O LATE KATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/OF MALLAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA 577501.

¶10

SRI JAGALORAPPA, S/O LATE KATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/OF ERAJJANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA 577501.

¶11

SRI CHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE KATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/OF ERAJJANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA 577501.

¶12

SRI SURAPPA, S/O LATE KATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶13

R/OF VASAGONDANAHALL VILLAGE, JAGALURU TALUK, 577528, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAMA BHAT K, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI MAHALINGAPPA, S/O PALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶18

¶19

SRI PATAPPA, S/O MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶20

SRI VASU @ VASUDEV, S/O MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶21

(NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF TAGARANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577501.

¶22

SRI. SANNAKARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, S/O GOKAJJARA PAPANNA, R/O SOLLAPURA VILLAG,E MAJARE TAGARANAHATTI, KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501.

¶23

… RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.KAREEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 – R3 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2017 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE 2^ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHITRADURGA ON I.A.NO.7 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.477/2015 is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the order dated 08.11.2017 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the learned II Additional

¶29

¶30

Civil Judge, Chitradurga, having favoured defendantrespondents’ application in IA No.7 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, 1908 has permitted entry of the said respondents to the array of the suit.

¶31

After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order specifically contending the said respondents are proper & necessary parties to adjudication of the subject suit.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶33

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court grants indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, in a suit for decree of bare injunction, it is for the dominant litis to chose who his opponent should be; this is broadly consistent with what the Apex Court has observed in

¶34

RAZIA BEGUM VS. SAHEBADI ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS AIR 1958 SC 886 .

¶35

The vehement contention of learned counsel for

¶36

the contesting respondent that he is in possession of the property and therefore, he is likely to be affected by the injunctive decree if & when made in favour of the petitioner

¶37

¶38

is preposterous; a person cannot get inclusion to the cause title of a suit even when the dominant litis is unwilling is the rule subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the petitioner does not fit.

¶39

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; impugned order is set at naught; respondents’ subject application is hereby rejected.

¶40

However, this order will not come in the way of the respondents taking up appropriate proceedings for protecting their right to or interest in the subject property, otherwise in accordance with law.

¶41

No costs.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Bsv

Sri Papanna v. Sri Mahalingappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Papanna v. Sri Mahalingappa

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

Smt Nagamma Vs Srim Prakash

Smt K S Sumangala Vs Sri M R Bharath Kumar

Prabhavathi Shedthi Vs Sumathi @ Radha Narayana Pai

Smt. Rekha Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

H Rajanna Alias Nagaraj Vs Sri T S Rajanna

Sri. M. Anwar @ Anwar Ji Vs Sree Hulliamma Praja Seva Samithi (R)