Disposed

Veeranna v. the Thasildar

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023WP/21707/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a District Court order that allowed impleadment of certain respondents in a sale deed regrant appeal. The High Court declined to interfere, holding the District Court did not act illegally. The High Court directed the District Court to dispose of the appeal within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Order set aside; petition disposed of; District Court directed to dispose appeal within nine months.

Veeranna Vs the Thasildar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39059 WP No. 21707 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 21707 OF 2023 (KVOA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VEERANNA

¶10

S/O. LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. GANESH S/O. LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶12

PETITIONER 1 AND 2 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT POOLANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135.

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

KEMPAMMA W/O. LATE SURYANARAYAPPA, D/O. NAGAPPA. S, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT MELUR VILLAGE, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶15

ANUSUYAMMA

¶16

D/O. LATE NAGAPPA.S, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT BEEDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:39059 WP No. 21707 of 2023

¶19

DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE THASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI.

¶24

SMT. RADHA W/O. LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶25

SMT. SAROJAMMA D/O. LATE G. S. NAGESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶26

SMT. RADHAMMA D/O. LATE G. S. NAGESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶27

SMT. M. V. JAYALAKSHMI W/O. LATE G. N. RAGHU PRAKSHA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶28

SMT. SOWMYA D/O. LATE G. N. RAGHU PRAKSHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶29

RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 6 R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39059 WP No. 21707 of 2023

¶31

SHESHAGIRI RAO S/O. LATE NAGARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶32

SUBBARAO S/O. VASUDEVARAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶33

RESPONDENT NO. 7 AND 8 R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶34

SMT. VEERAMMA @ EARAMMA W/O. LATE P. C. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶35

SMT. MANJULAMMA W/O. LATE P. C. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶36

GANGADHAR S/O. LATE P. C. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶37

MOHAN GOWDA S/O. LATE P. C. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶38

RESPONDENT NO. 9 TO 12 R/AT POLANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 135.

¶39

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39059 WP No. 21707 of 2023

¶40

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O. MUNIYAPPA @ KALONU, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

¶41

SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O. LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶42

SMT. RANJITHA D/O. LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶43

SMT. GAYATHRI DEVI D/O. LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶44

SMT. AMBUJA D/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶45

SMT. SINDU D/O. LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶46

SRI. MUNEENDRA S/O. LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

¶47

SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA @ KALONU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶48

CHANNAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA @ KALONU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ALL ARE RES NO. 13 TO 21 RESIDING AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:39059 WP No. 21707 of 2023

¶51

CHANNARAYANAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

¶52

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135.

¶53

…RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA., AGA)

¶55

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.A.NO.15034/2020, ON THE FILE OF LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT DEVANAHALLI; CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.08.2023 PASSED IN M.A.NO.15034/2020, ON I.A.NO.IX, UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, WHICH FILED BY THE R13 TO 20 HEREIN, ON THE FILE OF LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT DEVANAHALLI AT ANNEXURE-N.

¶56

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

¶57

ORDER

¶58

This petition is filed by the appellants in MA No.15034/2020 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District [for short, ‘ the District Court ’]. The petitioner is aggrieved by the District Court’s order dated 09.08.2023, and the District Court by this order has allowed the application in IA No.9 directing the appellants to implead the applicants as twelfth to twentieth

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:39059 WP No. 21707 of 2023

¶61

respondents as parties to the proceedings. The petitioners, in this appeal in MA No.15034/2020 before the District Court, have called in question the order of grant by the Tahsildar on 23.07.2019.

¶62

Sri A. Lourdu Mariyappa, the learned

¶63

counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court must interfere with the impugned order because the District Court is perfunctory in considering the merits of the application filed by the thirteenth to twenty-first respondents [who are for the purposes of this petition are referred to as ‘ the Contesting Respondents’ ]; and that the District Court has allowed the application for impleading without even framing points for consideration or considering the material circumstances relied upon by the petitioners as against the impleadment.

¶64

The learned counsel also submits that the

¶65

petitioners have specifically opposed the application contending that the contesting respondents have

¶66

¶67

NC: 2023:KHC:39059 WP No. 21707 of 2023

¶68

been informed way back that their application for regrant has been rejected; that the contesting respondents, even according to their own documents, have filed a suit for specific performance which is pending consideration and that the question whether the contesting respondents would be entitled for regrant cannot be examined in the proceedings commenced by the appellants.

¶69

This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, must consider whether there is irregularity in the discretion exercised by the concerned Court. In the present case, the District Court, after recording that the other respondents have been granted the benefit of re-grant based on the sale agreement relied upon by them, has exercised its discretion to allow impleadment observing that there would be complete adjudication if the contesting respondents, who also rely upon certain agreements, are heard.

¶70

¶71

NC: 2023:KHC:39059 WP No. 21707 of 2023

¶72

In the light of the afore, and the indisputable fact that the petitioners’ grounds are not foreclosed with the impleadment, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with. Therefore, the petition must be disposed of accordingly, but given the antecedent circumstances and the long pendency of the litigation, the District Court must be called upon to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible but within an outer limit of nine [9] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

SA ct:sr

Veeranna v. the Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeranna v. the Thasildar

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

M/S Maxis International Sdn Bhd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Maxis International Sdn Bhd Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Vodafone Qatar P Q S C Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Metals and Steels Private Limited Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri N Harish Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Pranava Electronics Private Limited Vs M/S Arvind Limited