Disposed

Sri Doddanarayanappa v. Sri Gangappa

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2022WP/15118/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by defendants challenging a trial court order dismissing their application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and Section 151 CPC. The trial court correctly held that the plaint could not be rejected as issues were framed and the suit contested on adverse possession grounds.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; trial court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

Sri Doddanarayanappa Vs Sri Gangappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶5

W.P. NO.15118 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

1 . SRI DODDANARAYANAPPA S/O LATE GURAMMA AND MUNISWAMAPPA A.K AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶8

2 . SRI. NARASIMHA @ NARASIMIAH S/O LATE GURAMMA AND MUNISWAMAPPA A.K AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶9

BOTH ARE AGRICULTURIST AND R/O BOMEKALLU VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . SRI GANGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,

¶14

1A. NARAYANSWAMY, S/OLATE GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶15

1B. SMT. DYAVAMMA W/O VENKARAYAPPA,

¶16

¶17

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MUGBAGAL VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK-563 131

¶18

SMT.LAXMAMA

¶19

1C . W/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R1 (A) TO (C) ARE R/O SIGIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TALUK SIDDALGHATTA-562 105.

¶20

2 . SRI. MUNEPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶21

2A. MUNIKRISHNA, AGED 35 YEARS, NARAYANSWAMY

¶22

2B . AGED 32 YEARS BOTH 2A AND 2B ARE R/O SIGIHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SIDDALGHATTA TALUK-562 105.

¶23

1. MUNIPUJAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,

¶24

3A. SMT. LAXAMAMMA W/O MUNIPUJAPPA AGED 60 YEARS, SIGIHALLI VILLAGE,KASABA HOBLI, SIDDALGHATTA TALUK

¶25

4 . SRI. MUNIGANGAPPA S/O LATE LAXMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O SHIGIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI SIDDALGHATTA TALUK-562 105.

¶26

5 . SRI. NARAYANAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,

¶27

¶28

5A. SMT. YELLAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶29

5B. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶30

5C. AMBAREESH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶31

5D . NAGRAJ S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶32

5E . SRI PRAKASH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶33

RESPONDENTS 5A TO 5D ARE R/O SHIGIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TALUK SIDDALGHATTA-562 105.

¶34

….RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI M G RAVISHA, ADVOCATE)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIDLAGATTA PASSED ON IA NO.11 DATED 18.3.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND FURTHER THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE IA NO.11 DATED 18.3.2019 AND DISMISS THE SUIT O.S.NO.6/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIDLAGATTA AND ETC.,

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

ORDER

¶40

This Writ Petition is filed by defendants 1 and 2 in Original Suit No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta, challenging the order dated 18.03.2019, dismissing the application-IA.11 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶41

Brief facts are that, the plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration, claiming title by way of adverse possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. In the meanwhile, the defendants have filed IA.11 under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the dispute of the parties have been concluded in Writ Appeal No.1975 of 2007 and therefore, sought for rejection of the plaint. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by order dated 18.03.2019, dismissed the application and

¶42

¶43

feeling aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 and 2 have presented this Writ Petition.

¶44

I have heard Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M G Ravisha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶45

Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs, seeking adverse possession in respect of the suit schedule property and in respect of the very same property, the rights of the properties has been crystallized by order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.859 of 2004 dated 29.08.2007, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1975 of 2007 dated 31.10.2012 and therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners is not maintainable. Accordingly, he contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court requires interference in this Writ Petition.

¶46

Per contra, Sri M.G.Ravisha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned

¶47

¶48

order passed by the trial Court and submitted that the application is filed in the year 2018 and the suit is of the year 2013 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the writ petition.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the impugned order passed by the trial Court, which would indicate that the plaintiffs have filed suit seeking declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and the suit is contested by the defendants before the trial Court. The defendants have filed IA No.11 seeking rejection of the plaint as it is barred by principle of res-judicata based on the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.859 of 2004 decided on 29.08.2007 which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1975 of 2007 dated 31.10.2012. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, has rejected the application on the ground that the relief sought for by the plaintiffs is on the ground of adverse possession and for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect

¶50

¶51

of suit schedule property, and the issues have been framed based on the pleadings on record. Perusal of the finding recorded by the trial Court, at paragraph 9 would indicate the trial Court has applied its mind and arrived at a conclusion that, suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be rejected and defendants were failed to show the sufficient grounds for rejection of the plaint. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the trial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed by the defendants. It also not in dispute that IA No.11 is filed after five years of initiation of the suit, seeking rejection of the plaint, and hence, I do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. However, considering the fact that, the suit is of the year 2013, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in terms of the circular issued by this court expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Sri Doddanarayanappa v. Sri Gangappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Doddanarayanappa v. Sri Gangappa

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

Syed Abdul Rasheed Vs Smt. Khursheed Begum

Smt.Girijamma Vs Smt. Basamma

Smt Vijayalakshmi Ramanna Vs Bhagya Krishnappa

Sri Mohammed Younus Vs Sri Mohammed Ayub

Sri Muthuraya Reddy Vs Smt Sudha K

Sri. Prabhuswamy Vs Sri. M.L. Mahesh @ Maheshaiah