Allowed

Shashidhara H C v. Hoda Ghatta Gramapanchayath

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023WP/10973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside the trial court order allowing impleadment of strangers (respondents 3 to 17) in a civil suit for injunction regarding land possession. Respondents faced no claim on the land but claimed road damage, requiring a separate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.04.2021 allowing respondents 3 to 17 to come on record in OA no. 63/2021 is set aside.

Shashidhara H C Vs Hoda Ghatta Gramapanchayath — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45661 WP No. 10973 of 2021

¶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 S.G.PANDIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 10973 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHASHIDHARA H C, S/O LATE CHIKKATHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O HODLAGHATTA VILLAGE - 571416, KERAGOUDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI ARAVIND M NEGLUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

HODA GHATTA GRAMAPANCHAYATH HIDHA GRAMA, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK - 571401, BY ITS PDO.

¶13

Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE TALUK EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MANDYA TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICE, MANDYA – 571401.

¶15

H S THYAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE SAVANDAIAH, FORMER PRESIDENT, HODAGHATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH -571416.

¶16

H SUKANDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O HUTCHANNA, FORMER MEMBER, HODAGHATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HODAGHATTA – 571416.

¶17

H T SHIVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45661 WP No. 10973 of 2021

¶19

S/O JOGI THAMMEGOWDA, FORMER MEMBER, HODAGHATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HODAGHATTA – 571416.

¶20

GANESHA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O KULLEGOWDA, FORMER MEBER, HODAGHATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HODAGHATTA – 571416.

¶21

SMT H S NAVYASHREE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O H S RAMESH, PRESENT MEMBER, HODAGHATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HODAGHATTA – 571416.

¶22

SMT SHARADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O BASAVARAJAPPA, HODAGHATTA VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571416.

¶23

SMT JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O SHIVANNA, HODAGHATTA VILLAGE - 571416, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶24

UMESHA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O VEERABHADRAPPA, HODAGHATTA VILLAGE – 571416, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45661 WP No. 10973 of 2021

¶26

H V NAGARAJU,

¶27

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O VEERAPPA, HODAGHATTA VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT -571 416.

¶28

SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O KARIYAPPA, HODAGHATTA VILLAGE – 571 416, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶29

H K JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O KARIGOWDA, HODAGHATTA VILLAGE – 571 416, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶30

GOWRISHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O H P VIJAYARAJU, HODAGHATTA VILLAGE – 571 416, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶31

SMT SUDHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O PUTTASWAMY, HODAGHATTA VILLAGE – 571416, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶32

H C SATHEESHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAPPA, HODAGHATTA VILLAGE - 571416, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:45661 WP No. 10973 of 2021

¶35

H S KUMARA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SHIVANNA, HODAGHATTA VILLAGE -571416, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT ARCHANA MURTHY P, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R6 TO R15 AND R17, R1, R2, R4, R5 AND R16 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA, PASSED ON IA FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 IN OS 63/2021 CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS IA FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 IN OS 63/2021 PENDING IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶39

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

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petitioner/plaintiff is O.S.No.63/2021 on the file

¶42

of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya is before

¶43

this Court, questioning the order dated 19.04.2021 allowing I.A.No.II filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC by respondents No.3 to 17 to come on record as respondents/defendants No.3 to 17.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:45661 WP No. 10973 of 2021

¶46

Heard learned counsel Sri.Arvind M. Neglur for petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel Smt.Archana Murthy P., for respondents No.3 to 17. Though respondents No.1 and 2 are served, they remained absent. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is one for injunction to restrain the defendants i.e., respondents No.1 and 2 from causing interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., 0.03 guntas of land in Hodhaghatta village, Keragodu, Mandya Taluk. Learned counsel would submit that respondents No.3 to 17 have no manner of right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. They claim that they are residing on both sides of the road leading to the suit schedule property. The grievance made out in the affidavit accompanying application is that the road has been seriously damaged due to the illegal acts of the plaintiff and they are unable to use the road. Learned

¶48

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45661 WP No. 10973 of 2021

¶49

counsel further submits that the trial Court allowed I.A. No.II filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC by respondents No.3 to 17 in a suit for injunction. The petitioner/plaintiff is the dominus litus and he has chosen defendants No.1 and 2 and sued them. Respondents No.3 to 17 are strangers and petitioner/plaintiff has no grievance against respondents No.3 to 17. It is submitted that if respondents No.3 to 17 have any grievance, it is open for them to agitate separately. Hence, it is submitted that respondents No.3 to 17 are not necessary and proper parties to the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff which is for bare injunction.

¶50

Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Archana Murthy for respondents No.3 to 17 would support the order passed by the trial Court and would submit that any order that would be passed in the suit would ultimately affect the right and interest of the respondents No.3 to 17. Further, learned counsel would submit that due to illegal acts of petitioner/plaintiff, the road where the respondents are

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:45661 WP No. 10973 of 2021

¶53

residing is damaged and they are not in a position to use the road. Thus, she justifies the order passed by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶54

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the trial Court committed an error in allowing the application for impleading respondents No.3 to 17 to the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for injunction.

¶55

In a suit for injunction, it is for the parties to prove their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the impleaded defendants/respondents No.3 to 17 herein have no claim over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, allegation of the respondents No.3 to 17 is that due to illegal acts of the petitioner/plaintiff the road leading to the suit schedule property is damaged and they are not in a position to use the said road. To redress the grievance of the respondents No.3 to 17, they cannot be impleaded in the present suit and they have to avail other remedy available

¶56

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:45661 WP No. 10973 of 2021

¶57

under law. Moreover, if the respondents No.3 to 17 are permitted to be impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, the impleaded defendants would not get any remedy or their grievance would not be redressed.

¶58

Further it is to be noted that the petitioner/plaintiff is dominus litus and it is for him to choose the party against whom he has grievance. In the light of the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.04.2021 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya allowing I.A. filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is set aside. It is open for respondents No.3 to 17 to avail

¶59

any other alternate remedy available to them under law.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

MPK

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Shashidhara H C v. Hoda Ghatta Gramapanchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashidhara H C v. Hoda Ghatta Gramapanchayath

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

D S Biligowda Vs D S Manjunath

Sri. K.S. Prabhakara Vs Smt. Bharathi@ Bhuvaneshwari

Sri.Ramesha Vs Sri.M.P.Madhu

Smt Nagaveni Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Smt. Jnaneshwari. D. R Vs Sri Chethan Prasad

Smt. Padmavathi Vs Sri. Krishna