Disposed

Sri B R Chiranth v. Smt B R Manjula

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2022WP/9763/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order under Article 227 directed the lower civil court to reconsider the impleadment of petitioners simultaneously with a pending amendment application in a partition suit, ensuring effective adjudication without disturbing the impugned order insofar as other purchasers are concerned.

What did the court decide?

CIVIL COURT TO CONSIDER IMPLEADMENT OF PETITIONERS SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT.

Sri B R Chiranth Vs Smt B R Manjula — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9763 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI B R CHIRANTH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O K S RAJAIAH,

¶7

DEEPTHI JERMELY CHIRANTH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O B R CHIRANTH,

¶8

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NO.378, 9TH G MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-40

¶9

(BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT B R MANJULA W/O H MANJUNATHAN, NO.394, 9TH MAIN ROAD, KHBCS LAYOUT, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, DODDABASTI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560056 SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.,

…PETITIONERS

1. H MANJUNATHAN,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, H/O SMT LATE B R MANJULA, S/O LATE B V HONNAPPA,

¶16

RAHUL GOWDA H M AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O SMT LATE B R MANJULA AND H M MANJUNATHAN,

¶17

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.394, 9TH MAIN ROAD, KHBCS LAYOUT, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR 2ND STAGE, DODDABASTI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560056

¶18

SMT PREMAKUMARI S W/O LATE RAMANNA @ KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶19

R SHANTHARAJU S/O LATE RAMANNA @ KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶20

R JAGADISH

¶21

S/O LATE RAMANNA @ KARIYAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶22

¶23

SMT. D.R.GEETHA AGEDA BOUT 40 YEARS W/O. LATE R.JAGADISH

¶24

MASTER CHIRANTH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O LATE R JAGADISH,

¶25

MASTER TARUN GOWDA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, S/O LATE R JAGADISH,

¶26

¶27

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO7 ARE

¶28

R/AT NO.50, OLD NO.43, DODDABASTI MAIN ROAD, MUTHURAYASWAMY TEMPLE, SONNENAHALLI, BENGALURU-560056

¶29

R NAGARAJU S/O LATE RAMANNA @ KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.609, 100 FEET ROAD, SONNENAHALLI, MARUTHINAGAR, ULLALU, BENGALURU-560055

¶30

SRI RAMAMURTHY R S/O LATE RAMANNA @ KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.2A, BEML LAYOUT, NEAR PAPANNA KALYANA MANTAPA, GATTIGERE NEW EXTENTION, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560098

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. K.NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE & SRI. G.R.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 V/O. DATED 07.06.2021, NOTICE TO R3 TO R9 IS D/W)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDER PASSED BY THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-18) DATED 16.03.2021 IN O.S.2104 OF 2018 ON I.A.NO.4.

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petitioners have been added as additional defendants in O.S.No.2104/2018 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short, ' the civil Court ') by the impugned order dated 16.03.2021. The petitioners are brought on record on the first respondent¹ - plaintiff's application [I.A.No.IV]. The first respondent's suit is for partition against her mother and brothers, including the step brother. The first respondent has filed the present application to include not only the petitioners but also certain others.

¶38

The first respondent's case is that the Bengaluru Development Authority on acquisition of the land measuring 5 acres 13 guntas in Sy.No.10/2 [New Sy.No.10/2a and 10/2b] of Sonnenahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk has allotted incentive sites to her mother, the

¶39

1 The first respondent is deceased and is now represented by her legal representatives, and from the certified copy of the plain annexed, it cannot be said that this application is allowed as amendment is not carried out.

¶40

¶41

third respondent [who is the first defendant], and she is also

¶42

entitled for a share in such incentive sites. The third respondent has executed certain gift deeds in favour of her sons, including the deceased third defendant [who is now represented by his legal representatives in present petition² ], and the third defendant has sold these incentive sites and purchased immovable properties, including the property in the name of his wife. The petitioners have purchased one of the properties purchased by the third defendant in his wife - the fifth respondent's name. As such, the petitioners and the others who have purchased incentive sites/other properties would be necessary parties. The civil Court has allowed this application observing that these purchasers, including the petitioners, would be necessary parties to the suit.

¶43

Sri. Rameshchandra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that though different circumstances as aforesaid are canvassed in support of the application for impleadment, the plaint is not amended to include

¶44

2 Again from the certified copy of the plain annexed, it cannot be said that the application filed in this regard is allowed as amendment is not carried out

¶45

¶46

properties purchased by the petitioners and if the properties are not part of the plaint claim, the petitioners can neither be necessary nor proper parties. In response, Sri. K.Narasimha Murthy, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, submits along with the application for impleadment (I.A.No.IV), the first respondent has also filed I.A.No.VI³ for amendment of the plaint and as regards the petitioners, the first respondent proposes to include amendment proposed as paragraph No.19(8). This application for amendment ought to have been considered along with the application for impleadment but has not been. Neither the amendment to include petitioners/other purchasers is carried out nor I.ANo.VI is decided on merits in view of the interim orders granted by this Court. Sri. K. Narasimha Murthy also submits that the other purchasers have accepted the impugned order.

¶47

It cannot be gainsaid that the civil Court had to consider both the application for amendment (I.A.No.VI) and the application filed for impleadment. The failure has resulted in injustice that has to be addressed for complete 3 Also described as I.A.No.V

¶48

¶49

and effective adjudication. This Court is of the considered

¶50

view that in the circumstances where some of the other purchasers have not questioned the impugned order by which they are brought into the fold of litigation and the application for amendment is still pending consideration, the civil Court must be called upon to re-consider the impleadment of the petitioners simultaneously with the application filed for amendment without disturbing the impugned order insofar as those purchasers who have not called in question their impleadment. Hence, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The petition stands disposed of calling upon the civil Court to consider impleadment of the petitioners simultaneously with the application for amendment to enable such consideration, the petitioners shall appear before the civil Court on 03.12.2022, the next scheduled hearing date without any further notice.

¶53

All contentions are left open insofar as the petitioners, and it would be needless to observe that

¶54

¶55

the petitioners will be at liberty to file their

¶56

objections to the applications for amendment.

¶57

Sd/- JUDGE

¶58

Sri B R Chiranth v. Smt B R Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B R Chiranth v. Smt B R Manjula

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

Thakranaika Vs the President

Ibibo Group Private Limited Vs Economic Transport Organization Ltd.

C. S. Chandrashekar Vs Sri. Krishnappa

Punjab National Bank Vs Rajya Vakaligara Sangha

Smt Chandrika Honnappa Vs Sri K Krishnamurthy

Shivalingaiah Vs Smt Suvarnamma