Allowed

Sri Yerrappa @ Earappa v. Sri Bhathyappa

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2023WP/2282/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Writ Petition No. 2282 of 2022 quashed an appellate judgment dated 03.12.2021 which set aside an interim injunction. The Court held the appeal was incompetent as it was filed against a deceased plaintiff without bringing legal representatives on record. The matter is remitted to the appellate court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dated 03.12.2021 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Court to pass an order on the application to bring legal representatives on record.

Sri Yerrappa @ Earappa Vs Sri Bhathyappa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:46342 WP No. 2282 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2282 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI YERRAPPA @ EARAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA DEAD BY LRS:

¶10

SMT. BAYYAMMA D/O LATE ERRAPPA W/O UTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶11

SRI PEDDA BAYYAPPA S/O LATE ERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶12

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

¶13

SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE ERRAPPA W/O BABU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT GALAPALLI VILALGE PULIGAL G P, CHELUR HOBI, BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLPAUR DISTRICT.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. T.M. CHOWDA REDDY, ADV.)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46342 WP No. 2282 of 2022

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI BHATHYAPPA S/O LATE GANGULAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶20

SRI. VENKATARAVANA S/O LATE GANGULAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶21

SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE GANGULAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶22

SMT. ERRAMMA D/O LATE ERRAPPA W/O SRI. BHATHYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶23

ALL ARE R/O RAJUVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE CHAKVELU GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHELURU HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK-561207.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2021 IN M.A.NO.41/2019 ON THE FILE OF SR. CIVIL JUDGE AT BAGEPALLI A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCE AT ANNEXURE-E AND A CASE IN MA NO.41/2019 BE DISSED CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2019 ON IA NO.I IN O.S.NO.159/2019 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AT BAGEPALLI AT ANNX-D.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46342 WP No. 2282 of 2022

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Though the matter is listed for orders, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, legal representatives of plaintiff in O.S.No.159/2019 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli are before this Court, aggrieved by judgment dated 03.12.2021 in M.A.No.41/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bagepalli allowing the appeal filed by respondents/defendants under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC, questioning the order dated 13.11.2019 in O.S.No.159/2019 allowing I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein.

¶32

Heard Sri.T.M.Chowdareddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46342 WP No. 2282 of 2022

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the father of petitioners Sri.Yerrappa filed O.S.No.159/2019 praying for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC which was allowed by the trial Court

¶35

by Order dated 13.11.2019 restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Against which, the respondents filed M.A.No.41/2019. It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiffrespondent in M.A. Sri.Yerrappa died on 25.03.2023 and it is submitted that without bringing legal representatives on record, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by respondents/defendants and set aside the order dated 13.11.2019 on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.159/2019. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Appellate Court could not have allowed the appeal against a dead person. Further, learned counsel would submit that the respondents/appellants had filed I.A. to bring the legal

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46342 WP No. 2282 of 2022

¶37

representatives on record on 18.12.2020 and without passing any order on the said I.A., the Appellate Court proceeded to allow the appeal. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners invites attention of this Court to the observation of this Court while passing interim order on 31.05.2022 and submits that this Court prima-facie come to the conclusion that the Appellate Court had not at all referred to the material placed on record by the plaintiff. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the impugned judgment.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry is not in a position to sustain the impugned judgment since the same is passed against a dead person.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the impugned judgment dated 03.12.2021 in M.A. No.41/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bagepalli requires to be set aside for the following reasons:

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46342 WP No. 2282 of 2022

¶41

This Court, while granting interim order has held that

¶42

the Appellate Court has not at all referred to prima-facie material placed on record by the plaintiff. The Appellate Court proceeded to pass the judgment allowing the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.1 without passing any order on the I.A. filed to

¶43

bring the legal representatives of plaintiff on record. The judgment passed is against a dead person. Though the respondents/appellants before the trial Court had filed application to bring legal representatives on record, the Appellate Court failed to pass any order to bring legal representatives on record.

¶44

Hence, the following order:

¶45

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 03.12.2021 in M.A.No.41/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bagepalli is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court, with a direction to pass appropriate order on I.A. filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent/plaintiff on

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:46342 WP No. 2282 of 2022

¶47

¶48

record and thereafter, hear the parties and pass

¶49

appropriate judgment in the appeal.

¶50

All contentions of the parties are left open.

¶51

SD/JUDGE

¶52

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri Yerrappa @ Earappa v. Sri Bhathyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Yerrappa @ Earappa v. Sri Bhathyappa

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

Ramya S Vs Mangalore Teachers Co. Operative Credit Society Ltd.

S Ravi Kumar Vs B T Yashwanth

Vijayakumar S Durgad Vs Sri Mallikarjun Swamy Hiremath

Geetha P a Vs B N Anil Kumar

Doddathimmaiah Dead by Lrs Vs Chikkalingamma Dead by Lrs

Smt Meghana B Vs Sri Arvind S