Disposed

Sri M Srinivas v. Sri Muniyappa @ Ramappa

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2023WP/2807/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of impleadment applications. Upholding the Trial Court's view that the petitioners were not proper or necessary parties, the Court clarified that any future decree would not bind them and assured them of liberty to pursue separate remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with clarification that petitioners' rights remain unaffected and are at liberty to seek separate remedies.

Sri M Srinivas Vs Sri Muniyappa @ Ramappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:23593 WP No. 2807 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2807 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI M SRINIVAS S/O MUNISWAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO 12/3, 2^ND CROSS 8^TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR

¶8

1^ST BLOCK EAST BYRASANDRA BENGALURU-560 011.

¶9

SMT SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O VENKATAPPA D/O LATE M KAVERAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO 42, PUTTAIAH PALYA JAYANAGAR 9^TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560 041

¶10

Digitally signed by VANDANA S

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI MUNIYAPPA @ RAMAPPA S/O S. MUNISWAMAPPA,

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/O NO 14, 1^ST CROSS BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA EAST BENGALURU-560 011.

¶17

SRI SIDDAPPA S/O LATE CHINAPPA

¶18

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O 2^ND CROSS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:23593 WP No. 2807 of 2023

¶21

4^TH MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGARA

¶22

BENGALURU-560 011.

¶23

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O NO 12, 2^ND CROSS BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA, 1^ST BLOCK EAST BENGALURU-560 011.

¶24

SRI GOPALA S/O LATE CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O NO 12, 2^ND CROSS BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA, 1^ST BLOCK EAST BENGALURU-560 011.

¶25

VENAKATAMMA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/O BYRASANDRA, 1^ST BLOCK EAST JAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 011.

¶26

SMT PUTAMMA W/O LATE V NAGARAJA

¶27

LAKSHMI D/O LATE V NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶28

KAVITHA D/O LATE V NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶29

TULASI S/O LATE V NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶30

UDYA S/O LATE V NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:23593 WP No. 2807 of 2023

¶33

RESPONDENTS NO. 6 TO 10 ARE R/AT BYRASANDRA, 1^ST BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶34

SRI VENKATESH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O BYRASANDRA, 1^ST BLOCK EAST JAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 011.

¶35

SMT KANNAMMA GRAND DAUGHTER OF KODDANADARAMA MODALIYAR MAJOR, LODALYA, NO 54 SARBANDEPALYA BANASHANKARI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 018.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 02.01.2023 IN OS.NO.2367/84 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-27) ON IA NO.IV FILED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE VIDE ANNX-P.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

This petition by the impleading applicants in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 is directed against the impugned order dated 02.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.2367/1984 by the XII City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the said applications filed by the petitioners/impleading applicants under

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:23593 WP No. 2807 of 2023

¶43

Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking permission to come on record as defendant Nos.4 and 6 was rejected by the Trial Court.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶45

The material on record discloses that respondent No.1plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration, possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the respondentsdefendants, in the first instance, the Trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 25.03.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in RFA No.956/2003, in which this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. After the aforesaid order of remand passed by this Court on 27.06.2022, the petitioners herein claiming independent right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property, filed the instant applications seeking impleadment as additional defendants to the suit. The said applications having been opposed by the plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the

¶46

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23593 WP No. 2807 of 2023

¶47

applications, aggrieved by which the petitioners-impleading applicants are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶48

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order passed by the Trial Court will indicate that the Trial Court has rejected the application mainly on the ground that the plaintiff was the dominus litus of the suit and he cannot be compelled to implead the petitioners as additional defendants, particularly when the petitioners claim independent right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property and they are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suit. In this context, it is relevant to state that the presence of the petitioners cannot be said to be necessary to adjudicate upon the issues in controversy between the parties as can be seen from the issues framed by the Trial Court, which indicate that there is a rival claim only interse between the plaintiffs and defendants. It also cannot be said that in the absence of the petitioners, an effective decree cannot be passed in the suit.

¶49

Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the

¶50

Trial Court is fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are not proper or necessary parties to the suit and

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23593 WP No. 2807 of 2023

¶52

cannot be impleaded in the suit. In so far as the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Trial Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner over the suit schedule property is concerned, suffice it to state that any judgment, order, decree, compromise, settlement etc., passed/to be passed in the suit shall not be binding upon the petitioners nor affect their right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property nor their rights and contentions over the suit schedule property and the petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to such remedies as available in law. All rival contentions between the petitioners and respondents are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶53

Subject to the aforesaid clarification, observations and

¶54

directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

BMC

Sri M Srinivas v. Sri Muniyappa @ Ramappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Srinivas v. Sri Muniyappa @ Ramappa

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 G Shantha Raj Vs Sri Shaji Chacko

Sri. Shrikanth N S Vs K. Munivenkatappa

Sri. Shrikanth N S Vs K Munivenkatappa

Sri. Krishna Shetty Vs Sri. Subramanya S/O Mahabala

Sri Perumareddy Surendranath Vs Smt Jayamma

Smt. Padmavathi Vs Smt Jayamma