In a writ petition filed under Article 226, the High Court of Karnataka heard a challenge against an order dismissing an application to implead proposed defendants in a civil suit regarding property ownership. The Court dismissed the writ petition without deciding the merits.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.41046 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI M.R. UMASHANKAR S/O SRI P. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT:MARGONDANAHALLY, BIDARHALLY HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 036.
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NARASIMHA MURTHY K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
R/AT: MARGONDANAHALLY, BIDARHALLY HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 036.
5 . SRI M.Y MANJUNATH S/O LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT:MARGONDANAHALLY, BIDARHALLY HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 036.
6 . SRI. VAJRAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT:MARGONDANAHALLY, BIDARHALLY HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 036.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KRISHNA NAIK & SHRI V. ANAND, ADVOCATES FOR R1, R4, R5 & R6 [V/C] NOTICE FOR R2 AND R3 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.1528 OF 2014 FROM THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 4.8.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1528 OF 2014 BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/O 1 RULE 10 OF CPC WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-R & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
had executed a gift deed in favour of the said proposed defendant nos.4 and 5 and a sale deed was executed in favour of defendant no.6. It is contended that the gift deed and sale deed had been executed in respect of the property of which the suit schedule property is a part.
Trial Court vide its order dated 4th August, 2015 dismissed the application in I.A. No.3 filed under Order I Rule 10(2), CPC. While doing so, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff, prima facie , is not able to establish that the gift deed and the sale deed relate to the suit schedule property.
regards certain properties, would be bound by any judgment or decree passed in O.S. No.1528/2014.
Sd/JUDGE
VGH
Sri M.R. Umashankar
Smt. Gangamma
Panchayat Development Officer, Bidarhally Gram Panchayat
Panchayat Secretary, Bidarhally Gram Panchayat
Sri M.Y Chandruppa
Sri M.Y Manjunath
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
