Allowed

Smt N G Girija v. Smt. Sarojamma

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2023WP/20220/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition under Article 227 quashing the order of the trial court that rejected an application to implead parties in a partition suit. The court held the applicants were necessary parties regarding property rights under a pending will suit.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order of the trial court; allowed the application for impleading the petitioners as defendants in O.S.No.5427/2014.

Smt N G Girija Vs Smt. Sarojamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:31475 WP No.20220 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20220 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. N.G. GIRIJA D/O LATE N.R. GURUMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶7

SRI. SADASHIVA S/O LATE N.R. GURUMURTHY REDDY

¶8

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶10

SMT. N.G. PADMAVATHI D/O LATE N.R. GURUMURHTY REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶11

ALL ARE R/AT NO.C/O NO.B-507 SMR VINAY GALAXY HOODI CIRCLE WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD BANGALORE 48.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. DILLI RAJAN, ADV.,)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR NO.201/2, GARDEN HOUSE L BLOCK 12TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN DODDENAKUNDI VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE 37.

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:31475 WP No.20220 of 2021

¶17

¶18

N.K. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY S/O LATE N.R. KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR NO.85 NEW NO.201/2 GARDEN HOUSE 12TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN DODDENAKUNDI VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE 37.

¶19

SRI. BHOOPENDRA REDDY S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR NO.201/2, GARDEN HOUSE 12TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN DODDENAKUNDI VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE 37.

¶20

N.K. SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR NO.201/2, GARDEN HOUSE S BLOCK 12TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN DODDENAKUNDI VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE 37.

¶21

SMT. GAYATHRI D/O N.K. KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR DODDENAKUNDI VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE 37.

¶22

N.K. LOKESH S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR NO.201/2, GARDEN HOUSE L BLOCK 12TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN DODDENAKUNDI VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE 37.

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:31475 WP No.20220 of 2021

¶24

¶25

M/S. BAGAMANE ESTATE PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT LAKE VIEW BLDN, NO.66/1 BLOCK 8TH FLOOR, BAGAMANE TECH PARK C V RAMAN NAGAR, BANGLAORE 93.

¶26

THE MANAGER KARNATAKA BANK LTD MARATHAHALLI BRANCH BANGALORE 37.

¶27

THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA CMH ROAD BRANCH INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 38.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. M. ERAPPA REDDY, ADV., FOR C/R2 (ABSENT) SRI. G.R. LAKSHMIPATHY REDDY, ADV., FOR R4 (ABSENT) SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADV., FOR SHETTY AND HEGDE ASSOCIATES FOR R7 SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV., FOR R5 V/O DTD:01.12.2021 NOTICE TO R1, R4, R6, R8 AND R9 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:17.01.2023 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.11.2021 IN RESPECT OF I.A NO.11 PASSED BY THE TRAIL COURT IN O.S.NO.5427/2014 AND TO ALLOW THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXUR-A AND ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:31475 WP No.20220 of 2021

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 06.11.2021 passed on I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.5427/2014 by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, ' the trial Court' ).

¶35

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that one Smt.K.Gayathri has filed the suit in O.S.No.5427/2014 seeking prayer for declaration that the partition deed dated 05.09.2012 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, declaration that the sale deed dated 06.09.2012 is not binding on the plaintiff and further prayer for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/6th share each in the schedule properties by metes and bounds and put the plaintiff in separate possession and other prayers.

¶36

3. During the pendency of the said suit, the present petitioners have filed an application under Order I Rule 10(a) of CPC praying to implead them as defendant

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:31475 WP No.20220 of 2021

¶38

Nos.9 to 11 in the said suit on the ground that they are proper and necessary parties for adjudication of the suit as their rights and interest are involved in respect of the suit schedule immovable properties. The said application filed by the petitioners was rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the said application, the present writ petition is filed.

¶39

4. Learned Senior counsel Sri.Vivek Subba Reddy

¶40

appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the proposed impleading applicants/petitioners herein are claiming that they are the legal heirs of son of ancestor Sri.N.Ramaiah Reddy and they have right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties and without arraying them as parties, the present suit is filed. It is the specific case of the petitioners/impleading applicants that late Smt.Lakshmamma, who was the wife of said Sri.N.Ramaiah Reddy executed the will dated 13.11.1975 without having any legal right to execute the same and the said will has been challenged by the

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:31475 WP No.20220 of 2021

¶42

petitioners/impleading applicants in O.S.No.2378/2004, which is pending consideration and in the said suit, the present petitioners have also claimed partition of the properties covered under the said will and under the strength of the said will other sons of Sri.N.Ramaiah Reddy have created third party rights by alienating portion of the property covered under the said will and now the present suit in O.S.No.5427/2014 is filed by the plaintiff claiming share in the very same properties without making the petitioners as parties to the proceedings. Hence, the petitioners are necessary and property parties to the said suit.

¶43

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 opposes

¶44

the writ petition by submitting that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the suit.

¶45

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5, who

¶46

is the plaintiff before the trial Court, at the outset, submits

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:31475 WP No.20220 of 2021

¶49

that he has no objection to allow the present writ petition by permitting the petitioners to come on record in the suit.

¶50

7. The said submission of learned counsel for respondent No.5 is placed on record.

¶51

8. I have heard Sri.Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Chandrashekar P.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, Smt.Latha S.Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 and perused the material on record.

¶52

9. On close scrutiny of the impugned order and the material on record, it appears that defendant Nos.2 to 6 have opposed the application on the ground that the applicants are pursuing their remedy in O.S.No.2378/2004 with respect to the same subject matter of the property hence they cannot once again seek their partition in the present suit nor they are the family members of plaintiff

¶53

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:31475 WP No.20220 of 2021

¶54

and defendant Nos.1 to 5, hence, sought for dismissal of the application.

¶55

10. The trial Court has recorded the finding that the petitioners have already instituted a comprehensive suit seeking partition in the family properties of the legal heirs of Sri.N.Ramaiah Reddy by arraying the present plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 as parties, hence they are not necessary parties in the present suit. In my considered view, the finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to settled position of law and facts. The petitioners herein are also claiming certain rights over the immovable properties which are subject matter of the present suit and for complete adjudication of the suit, petitioners herein are necessary parties in the present suit. The present application requires to be allowed to avoid the multiplicity

¶56

of proceedings, waste of time of the parties. The application for impleading is to be allowed so that all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter so that the dispute may be determined in

¶57

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:31475 WP No.20220 of 2021

¶58

their presence at the same time without any protraction, inconvenience or multiplicity of proceedings.

¶59

11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court, has also given no objection to implead the petitioners as parties to the proceedings in O.S.No.5427/2014.

¶60

12. For the reasons recorded supra and in view of the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.5plaintiff, the present writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 06.11.2021 passed on I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.5427/2014 by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. I.A.No.11 filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(a) of CPC before the trial Court is allowed.

¶61

No order as to costs.

¶62

BSR

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

Smt N G Girija v. Smt. Sarojamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt N G Girija v. Smt. Sarojamma

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

Sri Gopanalu Hanumanthappa Vs Sri Durugappa

Smt. Muniyamma Vs Sampangappa

Srilatha Joshy Vs Smt S Susheela Devi

M/S Sterling Mac Hotel Pvt.Ltd. Vs Sri K Narayanappa

Smt Rajalakshmi Vs Smt H v Anasuyamma

Smt. Ramamani Vs Sri K R Narendra Babu