Allowed

H Rajanna Alias Nagaraj v. Sri T S Rajanna

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2021WP/5311/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227, quashed an order rejecting an application to implead a buyer pendente lite in a suit. The court held that while not strictly necessary for the trial, impleading the buyer avoids execution complications, and thus the lower court erred in refusing it. The respondent was directed to be impleaded as Defendant No.7.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; contesting respondent directed to be impleaded as Defendant No.7 in the suit; order to file Written Statement within three weeks.

H Rajanna Alias Nagaraj Vs Sri T S Rajanna — 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. 5311 OF 2019(GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . H RAJANNA ALIAS NAGARAJ S/O. LATE. SRI. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶9

2 . H NEELAKANTHAIAH S/O. LATE. SRI. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶10

3 . H LOKESH S/O. LATE. SRI. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶11

4 . MANGALAMMA D/O. LATE. SRI. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶12

5 . NAGARATHNAMMA D/O. LATE. SRI. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT SATYAMANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572104

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. MANU K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY J N, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

1 . SRI T S RAJANNA S/O. SRI. SANGEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SANJEEVINI, 6^TH -A-CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA, KASABA, TUMKUR – 572 104.

¶18

¶19

2 . SMT. ANNAPOORNAMMA S/O. LATE. S GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 3 . SRI. S G MAHADEVASWAMY S/O. LATE. S GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4 . SRI. S G THIRTHA PRASAD S/O. LATE. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.2,3 AND 4 ARE R/AT SATYAMANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK -572104 5 . SRI. S M HONNAPPA, S/O. MURUGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT SATYAMANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572104 6 . HANUMANTHIAH, S/O. NARASIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O. HANUMANTHIAH, MAJOR, AGE NOT KNOWN,

¶20

7 . SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O. LATE. HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶21

8 . SMT. JAYAMMA D/O. LATE. HANUMANTHAIAH, MAJOR AGE NOT KNOWN, R/AT PUTTASWAMAIAHANA PALYA VILLAGE, KASABA , TUMKUR TALUK 572104.

¶22

SRI. NARASEEYAPP @RAJA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, MAJOR AGE NOT KNOWN, PROPOSED LR’S 5,6,7,8,9 ARE RESIDING AT PUTTASWAMAIAHANA PALYA VILLAGE, KASABA, TUMKUR TALUK – 572 104.

¶23

10 . SMT. KAMALAMMA D/O. LATE. HANUMANTHAIAH, W/O. ANJANAPPA, MAJOR AGE NOT KNOWN, R/AT URULITHOTA VILLAGE, KASABA, TUMKUR TALUK 572104

¶24

¶25

SMT. SOWBHAGYA D/O. LATE. HANUMANTHAIAH, W/O. GANGAHANUMAIAH, MAJOR AGE NOT KNOWN, R/AT BIDIRAMALETHOTA VILLATE, TUMKUR TALUK 572 104

¶26

12 . SMT,. RAMAKKA D/O. LATE. HANUMANTHAIAH, W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY,, MAJOR AGE NOT KNOWN, R/AT SOLURE VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK 562127

¶27

13 . SIDDALINGAIAH S/O. NAGAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,

¶28

SMT. PUTTAVEERAMMA, W/O. LATE. SIDDALINGAIAH, MAJOR AGE NOT KNOWN,

¶29

14 . SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. LATE. SIDDALINGAIAH, MAJOR, AGE NOT KNOWN,

¶30

15 . SRI. VENKATAPPA S/O. LATE. SIDDALINGAIAH, MAJOR, AGE NOT KNOWN,

¶31

16 . SRI. CHIKKANNA S/O. LATE. SIDDALINGAIAH, MAJOR, AGE NOT KNOWN,

¶32

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SATHYAMANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA, TUMKUR TALUK – 572 104.

¶33

SMT. PUTTAMMA D/O. LATE. SIDDALINGAIAH, W/O. THIMMANNA, MAJOR, R/AT HEGGERE VILLAGE, KASABA , TUMKUR TALUK 572104

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. CHITHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-R17 IS DISPENSED WITH V.C.O DATED 13.03.2019)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

¶37

¶38

ORDER DATED 03.01.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND JMFS AT TUMKURU IN OS NO.69/1990 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNX-E.

¶39

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

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

Petitioners being the plaintiffs in a suit for

¶42

declaration & injunction in O.S.No.69/1990 are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 03.01.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned Principal Addl. City Civil Judge, Tumkuru having rejected their application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, 1908 has refused to implead the contesting respondent as Defendant no.7 to the suit.

¶43

After service of notice, the contesting respondent

¶44

having entered appearance through his counsel and notice to other respondents having been dispensed with, resists the writ petition making submission on the basis of doctrine of lis pendence enacted in Sec.52 of the Transfer of property Act,1882; he also argues in support of the reasons on which the impugned order is predicated.

¶45

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court grants indulgence in the matter inasmuch as although a buyer pendente lite is not a proper & necessary party in terms of decision of the Apex Court in Razia Begum v/s Sahebzadi Anwar Begum , AIR 1958 SC 886, in the sense that a declaration suit can be decided sans his presence and he would eventually be bound thereby, still his impleading is permissible vide AMIT KUMAR SHAW vs. FARIDA KHATOORN (2005) 11 SCC 403 , of course subject to discretion and wisdom of the court.

¶47

The Defendant no.7 can be impleaded by the

¶48

plaintiff to avoid other complications which may arise in the absence of his arraignment; the contention that lis pendens doctrine shall take care of interest of the plaintiff is a poor solace, regard being had to the execution pragmatics if & when suit is decreed; this aspect having not been considered by the learned Judge of the Court below, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court.

¶49

In the above circumstances, this writ petition

¶50

succeeds; the impugned order having been set at naught,

¶51

¶52

petitioners application having been favoured, the contesting respondent is directed to be impleaded to the suit as Defendant No.7 in the suit in question; Defendant no.7 shall file Written Statement, if any, within three weeks whereupon it is open to the petitioners to amend their pleadings, if necessary within next three weeks.

¶53

All contentions of the parties are left open.

¶54

No costs.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Snb/

H Rajanna Alias Nagaraj v. Sri T S Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H Rajanna Alias Nagaraj v. Sri T S Rajanna

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

Sri Papanna Vs Sri Mahalingappa

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