Dismissed

Sri Satish K R v. Anantharamu Dead by Lrs Smt v Gayathri

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023CRP/741/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Hall of Pigeons bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an impugned order under Section 115 CPC. The Trial Court had clubbed two suits arising from the deceased respondent's estate relating to the same property to prevent conflicting judgments. The bench held that since parties and property were identical, no error was committed in clubb

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; pending Interlocutory Applications (I.As.) stand rejected.

Sri Satish K R Vs Anantharamu Dead by Lrs Smt v… — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45707 CRP No. 741 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 741 OF 2023 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SATISH K.R. S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. ROOPA D.J. W/O SRI. SATISH K.R., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶9

SL.NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENT OF JODIKRISHNAPURA, DUDA HOBLI, KORAVANGLA, KRISHNAURAGRAMAN, HASSAN - 573 118.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

ANANTHARAMU DEAD BY LRS

¶15

SMT. V. GAYATHRI W/O LATE ANANTHARAMU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. AVINASH ANANTHRAMU S/O LATE ANANTHARAMU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶17

SL.NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.46, "SREELAKSHMI", 1^ST CROSS, UPSTAIRS, MICO LAYOUT II PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 2^ND STAGE,

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45707 CRP No. 741 of 2023

¶19

MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2023 PASSED IN O.S. NO.8851/2018 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU., ALLOWING THE IA FILED UNDER SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR CLUBBING OF TWO (2) SUITS.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners have challenged the correctness of an order dated 07.09.2023 passed by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in O.S.No.8851/2018 by which, it allowed an application and clubbed the suits in O.S.No.8100/2018 and O.S.No.8851/2018 and treated the suit in O.S.No.8851/2018 as the lead suit.

¶25

The deceased - respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.8100/2018 for perpetual injunction in respect of a property bearing No.309 situate at Pantharapalya, Bengaluru. Later, the deceased - respondent filed another suit in O.S.No.8851/2018 for perpetual injunction which was later

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45707 CRP No. 741 of 2023

¶27

amended and the relief of declaration of title to the property and for recovery of possession was sought in respect of property bearing No.309 situate at Pantharapalya, Bengaluru. Both the suits were assigned to the same Court. Consequently, an application was filed by the counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased - respondent to club both the suits. The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order held that the suit in O.S.No.8851/2018 was for comprehensive relief, while the suit in O.S.No.8100/2018 was for perpetual injunction and therefore, to avoid conflicting judgment, felt it appropriate to club both the suits and treated the suit in O.S.No.8851/2018 as lead suit.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is

¶29

filed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶31

that both the suits when filed initially were for the relief of perpetual injunction. It is only now the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession is sought. He submits that in the written statement filed in O.S.No.8851/2018, a counter

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:45707 CRP No. 741 of 2023

¶34

claim is made and therefore, it is not safe to club both the suits.

¶35

Clubbing of suits arises only when the parties in both the suits are the same and the property involved in both the suits are same. This is done to ensure that there is no conflicting judgment and also to avoid repeated recording of evidence and passing judgments. Therefore, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in clubbing O.S.No.8851/2018 and O.S.No.8100/2018 so as to pass a comprehensive judgment in both the suits. There is no error committed by the Trial Court warranting interference of this Court.

¶36

Hence, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶37

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

¶38

any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand

¶39

rejected.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Sri Satish K R v. Anantharamu Dead by Lrs Smt v Gayathri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Satish K R v. Anantharamu Dead by Lrs Smt v Gayathri

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

The Commissioner, Vs Gangamma

Smt. Rajitha Govardhan Vs Smt. Geetha Madhusudhan

Smt. Venkatamma Vs Sri Veeranna

M/S. Mineral Enterprises Ltd., Vs the New Mangalore Port Trust

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Pramerica Aspf II Cyprus Holding Ltd.

R. N. Jayanth Vs the State of Karnataka by Doddaballapura Rural P.S.