Allowed

Smt D R Poornima v. Smt Leelamma

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2023WP/2333/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenged an order allowing a tenant to implead and claim title in an ejectment suit. The High Court held that a tenant in such suits is not a necessary party and the suit scope cannot expand to title disputes. The impugned order quashing a filing of a tenant's application was quashed. Liberty was reserved for the impleading applicant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 23.12.2021 in HRC No.4/2018 is quashed; the Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by respondent No.2 is dismissed.

Smt D R Poornima Vs Smt Leelamma — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2333 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2333 OF 2022 (HRC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. D.R. POORNIMA, W/O M.P. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.2356, 3RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT LEELAMMA, W/O LATE KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 100 FEET ROAD, NEAR VIJAYA BANK, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. N. GEETHA, W/O LATE SOMSHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT. NO.1637, 3RD CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY KUTTAPPA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GAUTAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 26-7-2022 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-D DATED

¶18

¶19

WP No. 2333 of 2022

¶20

23.12.2021 PASSED IN HRC NO.4/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2D ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MANDYA AND DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-B.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has filed a petition in HRC No.4/2018 for ejectment on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya for directing the defendant No.1 - respondent No.1 herein to vacate the suit schedule property. In the said petition, the 2nd respondent filed an application for impleadment claiming title over the subject property. The Trial Court allowed the said application, against which, the present writ petition is filed.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Admittedly, the suit is for one for ejectment. The plaintiff is only required to prove that she is the landlord of the property and defendant No.1 is the tenant. Insofar as ownerhisp of the property being set up in the impleading application by the tenant is concerned, it must be noticed that the proceedings relating to khatha effected in the name of the plaintiff had been challenged by the respondent No.2 and others. In the said proceedings, the khatha registered in favour of the plaintiff has been upheld.

¶26

Whether there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is the matter, which requires to be established after trial. The scope of the

¶27

¶28

WP No. 2333 of 2022

¶29

suit cannot be enlarged by the impleading applicant by setting up the claim of title over the subject property. If the plaintiff fails to prove her relationship with the defendant No.1, the plaintiff would not be entitled for any relief. There is no scope for intervention by the impleading applicant in the ejectment suit. The impleading applicant is neither a proper or necessary party for adjudication of the relief sought for. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶32

ii) The impugned order dated 23.12.2021 passed in HRC No.4/2018 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, is hereby quashed and consequently, I.A. filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by the respondent No.2 stands dismissed.

¶33

iii) Liberty is reserved with the respondent No.2 to establish her alleged title over the subject property in the manner known to law.

¶34

iv) The Trial Court is requested to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

BKM

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 112

Smt D R Poornima v. Smt Leelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt D R Poornima v. Smt Leelamma

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. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Umesha. H. C. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Hanumantharaju K M Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Shankar Nayak H S Vs the Divisional Controller

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Venkatesha Murthy

Sri Manu L Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.