Dismissed

Smt. Puttagangamma @ Gangamma v. Smt. Neelamma

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2022WP/36349/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition filed by legal representatives challenging the dismissal of an application for scientific investigation of a sale deed. The Court held that since the sole object was the production of the same deed, the trial Court was right to dismiss the application as the reliefs were effectively the same in an earlier I.A.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Puttagangamma @ Gangamma Vs Smt. Neelamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.36349 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT. PUTTAGANGAMMA @ GANGAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶8

1A. SRI G S MANJUNATHA S/O LATE SHIVANNA

¶9

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.18 MANJUNATHA NILAYA

¶10

1^ST MAIN, GEETHA CLINIC ROAD

¶11

6^TH CROSS, DEVASANDRA,

¶12

K R PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶13

1B. SRI G S SURESHA

¶14

S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.205, DEVASANDRA BEGALUR MAIN ROAD YELAHANKA

¶15

BENGALURU-560 063.

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI SREENIVASA K L, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND

¶19

1 . SMT. NEELAMMA

¶20

W/O. LATE S. NEELAKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶21

¶22

2 . SRI. B. N. NANDEESH S/O. LATE S. NEELAKANTAIAH,

¶23

3 . SRI. B. N. VIJAY S/O. LATE S. NEELAKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶24

R1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.664, 7^TH "A" MAIN, NAGARABHAVI 2^ND STAGE, 9^TH BLOCK, NEAR BANDE MARAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560 071.

¶25

4 . SMT. B. N. MANJULA D/O. LATE S. NEELAKANTAIAH, W/O. NEELAKANTA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.1037, 4^TH "M" BLOCK, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶26

5 . CANARA BANK VIJAYANAGAR BRANCH, BENGALURU -560 040, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, SRI. RADHAKRISHAN.

¶27

….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANJIVA B BELAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 4; SRI M S VINAYAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6^TH JULY, 2017 PASSED ON I.A.12 U/O 16 RULE 6 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 4864 OF 2003 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,

¶29

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.4864 of 2013 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru challenging the order dated 06^th July, 2017.

¶33

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, plaintiff has filed suit against the defendant seeking relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 08^th November, 2001 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has filed application under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in IA.12 seeking direction to respondent No.1 to produce the original sale deed dated 08^th November, 2001 for referring the same for scientific investigation. The said application was resisted by defendants. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by impugned order dated 6^th July, 2017 dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the

¶34

¶35

original plaintiff has filed this Writ Petition. During the pendency of this Writ Petition plaintiff/petitioner died and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff/petitioner are prosecuting this Writ Petition.

¶36

Sri Sreenivasa K L, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to law, as the reasons assigned by the trial Court while rejecting IA.12 is on the ground that the plaintiff has filed similar application in IA.11, which came to be dismissed and therefore, the subsequent application in IA.12 is not maintainable and the said finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to law as IA.11 is filed seeking direction to the defendant No.1/legal representatives of defendant No.1 to produce the original sale deed dated 08^th November, 2001 for personal inspection for effective cross-examination by the plaintiff. Therefore, he contended that the finding recorded by the trial Court requires interference in this Writ Petition.

¶37

Per conrra, Sanjiva V. Belagali, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 sought to justify the impugned

¶38

¶39

order passed by the trial Court and further reiterated the averments made in the statement of objections. He further contended that this Court in Writ Petition No.36350 of 2017 and connected matters disposed of on 24^th October, 2017, dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner herein with regard to IAs.13, 14 and 15 and therefore, he submitted that the present Writ Petition is also not maintainable before this Court.

¶40

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the trial Court. Perusal of IA.11 would indicate that said application is filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to defendants 1 and 2 to produce original sale deed dated 08^th November, 2001 for the personal inspection for effective cross-examination and the said application came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 19^th September, 2016. In IA.12 Annexure-F, the relief sought for by the plaintiff is to direct defendant No.1 to provide the original sale deed dated 08^th November, 2001 for scientific investigation. Though the nomenclature stated in IA.11 and IA.12 are different, however,

¶41

¶42

the sole object of the plaintiff is seeking production of sale deed dated 08^th November, 2001 and in that view of the matter, I am of the view that the trial Court, rightly dismissed the application IA.12 filed by the plaintiff and therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have not made out a case for interference in the impugned order passed by the trial Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

lnn

Smt. Puttagangamma @ Gangamma v. Smt. Neelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Puttagangamma @ Gangamma v. Smt. Neelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Venkatamma Vs T Kumar

Sri Amarchand Vs Sri M Narayanappa

Shri Shridhar Vs Smt Akbari Banu

Sri Mahimahesh Vs Sri Swamy

Puttanarasamma Vs M G Pandurangaiah

Varghese M Jayan Vs Mar Gregorios Orthodox Church