Dismissed

Sri Chikkanarasimhaiah @ Raju v. Sri N Narasimhaiah

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2023CRP/461/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this civil revision petition challenging a trial court order that rejected an application for plaint rejection under CPC. It held that evidence of non-interference and inability to amend boundaries did not justify rejecting the plaint.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order upholding rejection of plaint stand. Pending interest applications dismissed.

Sri Chikkanarasimhaiah @ Raju Vs Sri N Narasimhaiah — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41969 CRP No. 461 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 461 OF 2023 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH @ RAJU S/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶8

SMT. KARIYAMMA W/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF ALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE, HAMLET OF AJJANAHALLI, THAVARAKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 562 120

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. H.N.SHASHIDHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR KESVY & Co., FOR SRI. H.S.SUHAS, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. N.NARASIMHAIAH S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶15

SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA N., S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶16

SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR N., S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶17

SRI. PRAKASH N S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41969 CRP No. 461 of 2023

¶19

SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY N S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶20

SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR N S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶21

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.84, CHIKKANNASWAMY NILAYA, SEA COLLEGE ROAD, KODAGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARA BADAVANE, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶22

SRI. C. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O CHIKKANARASAIAH @ CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.557, 12^TH CROSS, 12^TH MAIN, BHARATHINAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 091

¶23

(BY SRI. B.T. INDUSHEKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT NO.7;

¶24

…RESPONDENTS FOR CAVEATOR

¶25

VIDE ORDER DATED 01.08.2022, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 DEEMED TO BE SERVED; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6)

¶26

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV IN O.S.NO.327/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.IV FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(A) AND (D) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41969 CRP No. 461 of 2023

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This petition is filed by defendant Nos.7 and 8 challenging an order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in O.S.No.327/2015 by which, an application (I.A.No.IV) filed by them under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC, was rejected.

¶31

The suit in O.S.No.327/2015 was filed for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, an application (I.A.No.III) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed to amend the plaint schedule as follows:-

¶32

"In the eastern boundary of item No.1 after the words "Land of Narasimhaiah" to add words "now in possession of Sridevi" and in the western boundary, after the words "Land of Ganga Narasaiah" to delete the words "now in possession of Sridevi" and in the southern boundary after the words "Land" to delete "bearing Sy.No.92/1" and to insert in its place as "of Narasimhaiah".

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:41969 CRP No. 461 of 2023

¶35

In respect of item No.2, eastern boundary was sought to be amended as after the words "Land of Ganga Narasaiah" to delete words "now in possession of Sridevi" and in the western boundary after the words "Land of Huchappa" to add words "now in possession of Sridevi".

¶36

This application was rejected by the Trial Court in terms of an order dated 18.07.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.40094/2019 which too was rejected in terms of an order dated 17.06.2020. After crossexamination of plaintiff, an application (I.A.No.IV) was filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that; (i) the boundaries of the suit schedule properties and the boundaries of the land belonging to the defendants were different and (ii) PW.1, had clearly admitted that the defendant No.7 and 8 had not interfered with his possession. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and the Trial Court in terms of the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the evidence of parties was adduced and that the plaint cannot be rejected just because plaintiff had stated in his evidence that his possession was not disturbed.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:41969 CRP No. 461 of 2023

¶39

Being aggrieved by the said order, the

¶40

petitioners/defendant No.7 and 8 have filed this revision petition.

¶41

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendant Nos.7 and 8 submitted that when the plaintiff himself had admitted in the course of his cross - examination that defendant Nos.7 and 8 had not interfered with his possession, then the Trial Court must have rejected the plaint as there was no cause of action to file a suit against defendant Nos.7 and 8. He further contended that when the application for amendment of the schedule of the suit property was dismissed, the plaintiff could not have pursued the suit and that the suit is not maintainable.

¶42

Per contra, the learned counsel for plaintiff contended that the admission, if any, in the course of crossexamination of PW.1 has to be examined in the light of other documentary evidence and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in not rejecting the plaint.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:41969 CRP No. 461 of 2023

¶45

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.7 and 8 as well as the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶46

The application for rejection of the plaint was filed

¶47

on the basis of certain admissions made by the plaintiff in the course of his cross-examination that defendant Nos.7 and 8 were not interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, a portion of the evidence cannot be looked in isolation but the conduct of the defendants in contesting the suit, filing their written statement and the contentions raised, have to be comprehensively looked into to determine whether there was a cause of action to file a suit against defendant Nos.7 and 8 or not. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected on this ground. Further, if the plaintiff can establish that he is entitled to the relief sought for, the Court could grant relief if the property could be identified. Since this can be done on the basis of pleadings and evidence, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that an application for amendment of the boundaries of the suit property, was rejected.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:41969 CRP No. 461 of 2023

¶50

In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was

¶51

justified in rejecting the application filed by the defendants. There is no reason why this Court should interfere with the

¶52

finding of the Trial Court.

¶53

Hence, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶54

In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if

¶55

any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

PMR

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri Chikkanarasimhaiah @ Raju v. Sri N Narasimhaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chikkanarasimhaiah @ Raju v. Sri N Narasimhaiah

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

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the Range Forest Officer

Sri.Krishnaprasad.v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnaprasad v Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sakhi Bai Vs Sri Prakash

Sri. Lakshman Naik, Vs Smt. Divya

Smt Prabha Chandre Gowda Vs Sri S Prakash