Allowed

Smt Vijayalakshmi Ramanna v. Bhagya Krishnappa

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2022WP/5738/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order dismissing an application to amend a plaint in a succession suit. The applicant sought to substitute a claim for probate with one for letters of administration as the executor was not appointed. The Court allowed the writ, set aside the dismissal, and granted the amendment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Impugned order dated 10.02.2022 set aside; Interlocutory Application No.12 allowed; Costs of Rs.10,000 awarded to defendants.

Smt Vijayalakshmi Ramanna Vs Bhagya Krishnappa — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5738 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI RAMANNA, W/O LATE T.V. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, BHAGYA BHAVAN, No.114, NEW No.24, K.R. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIKARA P.K., & SRI. B.G. GAURAV MANDAPPA, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BHAGYA KRISHNAPPA, W/O LATE T.V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, No.120, 4^TH CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, R.K. LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶13

T.K. YOGESH, S/O T.V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, No.4, MYSORE ROAD EXTENSION, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

¶14

¶15

REKHA CHANDRASHEKAR, D/O T.V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶16

SMT. RASHMI ANOOP, D/O T.V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶17

BOTH RESPONDENTS No.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT No.120, 4^TH CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, R.K. LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR,

¶18

BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶19

T.V. SUSHEELAMMA, W/O D. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, No.2452, 4^TH CROSS, MARIGOWDA EXTENSION, MANDYA. (SINCE DEAD)

¶20

REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR

¶21

5A. GUNASEKHAR CHIKKANNA, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT No.2452, 4^TH CROSS, MARIGOWDA EXTENSION, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶22

5B. VIDYASEKHAR CHIKKANNA, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT No.964, 2^ND CROSS, NAVYASHAKTHI, VIDYA SAMITHI ROAD, MARIGOWDA BADAVANE BANNUR ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶23

T.V. BHAGYAMMA, W/O SRI. NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT B.M. ROAD,

¶24

¶25

CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

¶26

SRI. MAHESH S/O LATE M. VISHAKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.24 A, 3^RD MAIN, TANK BUND ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶27

RAGHUNANDAN RAMANNA, S/O LATE T.V. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT No.28 C6, SWAPNALOK APARTMENTS, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 042.

¶28

SRI. DEVANANDAN RAMANNA, S/O LATE T.V. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, BHAGYA BHAVAN, No.114, NEW No.24, K.R. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. M.L. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R5(A) & R7)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORD OF OS.NO.6223/2014 FROM THE TRIAL COURT i.e., I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU(CCH-2) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2022 DISMISSING THE IA NO.12 IN OS.NO.6223/2014 SEEKING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PALINT AND CONSEQUENTLY,ALLOW THE SAID IA NO.12(ANNEXURE-A).

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

This writ petition is filed by the

¶36

petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.6223/2014, on the file of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Benglauru (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) challenging the order dated 10.02.2022, dismissing the application I.A-12 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.

¶37

For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants before the trial Court.

¶38

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the plaintiff has filed P&S.C.No.222/2010 to prove the Will dated

¶39

09.06.1978 executed by the late V. Venkatappa in favour of late T.V. Ramanna, in respect of suit schedule property. The defendants entered

¶40

¶41

appearance and contested testamentary proceedings initiated in P&S.C.No.222/2010. Thereafter, the case was renumbered as O.S.No.6223/2014 in terms of Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act. In the said suit, at the time of cross-examination of DW-1, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking permission to insert paragraphs 4 and 12 and in the prayer column seeking relief to insert “Letters of Administration with Will annexed” has the executor has not been appointed in the Will dated 09.06.1978 before application was contested by the defendants, the trial Court by impugned order dated 10.02.2022, had come to a conclusion that the said application has been filed at the belated stage and there is no due diligence on the part of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has presented this writ petition.

¶42

¶43

Heard Sri. Shrikara P.K / Sri. B.G. Gaurav Mandappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.M. Narayana Swamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and also Sri. M.L. Gowda & Associates learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.7.

¶44

Sri. Shrikara P.K / Sri. B.G. Gaurav Mandappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the amendment sought in the application is with regard to adding para relating to the grant of letters of Administration instead of grant of probate on the account that the executor has not been appointed in the suit. Accordingly, he submitted that allowing the said application would not cause any hardship to the defendants. Further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also made available the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.55406/2015, wherein this Court by allowing

¶45

the writ petition directed the parties to expedite

¶46

¶47

hearing before the trial Court and to complete the entire proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶48

Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the trial Court and submitted that the said application has been filed after inordinate delay of more than 12 years and therefore, the rejection of the application by the trial Court is just and proper and it does not call for any interference in this writ petition.

¶49

Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that, the original suit is filed seeking grant of probate however, the perusal of the writ papers would substantiate that the executor has not been appointed by the testator in the Will and accordingly, the proposed amendment by the plaintiff is with regard to the grant of relief of insertion of letters of administration and I am of the view that though I find force in the arguments advanced by the defendants that there is a delay in filing the application even after

¶50

¶51

completion of the RFA proceedings before this Court, in the event, if the said application is rejected, the relief as sought for by the plaintiff in the original suit has become redundant. Therefore, I am of the view that I.A-12 filed by the plaintiff is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be payable by the plaintiff to the defendants. In that view of the matter, I request the learned trial Judge to complete the proceedings in terms of the order passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition with regard to expedite

¶52

the hearing in the proceedings. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶55

ii. I.A-12 is allowed and order dated 10.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.6223/2014 is set aside.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

GRD

Smt Vijayalakshmi Ramanna v. Bhagya Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vijayalakshmi Ramanna v. Bhagya Krishnappa

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

Nagaraja Vs Srinivasa

Smt K N Shobha Vs Shri S Krishnappa

M/S Bangalore Metropolitan Vs Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd.

Syed Abdul Rasheed Vs Smt. Khursheed Begum

Smt.Girijamma Vs Smt. Basamma

Smt. Subhadra Vs Gurudatt Developers