Partly allowed

Smt Uma v. Sri C D Rajappa

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023WP/3064/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside the trial court order rejecting a plaint amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The trial court erred in assuming the validity of a release deed was not challenged, though amendment prayers regarding an agreement of sale were correctly rejected. The amendment allowing claims against the release deed was permitted but proof matters will be decided at trial.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the trial court was set aside. Amendment to the plaint to challenge the release deed was allowed; amendment to challenge the sale agreement was rejected.

Smt Uma Vs Sri C D Rajappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3064 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 3064 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶8

SMT UMA W/O C D RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶9

SMT RANJITHA D/O C D RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE R/OF THIRUMALASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKATHIRUPATHI MAIN ROAD, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU-560 067.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. J R MOHAN & SURESHA M.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI C D RAJAPPA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O CHIKKADASARAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI-562 125. ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶15

SMT SOUBHAGYA 2ND WIFE OF C D RAJAPPA,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 3064 of 2019

¶18

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O CHIKKADASARAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI-562 125. ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶19

SRI RAMESH S/O C D RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O CHIKKADASARAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI-562 125. ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶20

SRI SURESH S/O C D RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/O CHIKKADASARAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI-562 125 ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶21

SMT M VIDYA W/O R S SHARATH BABU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.C-307, ATULYA APARTMENT, R.K.TOWNSHIP,. YARANDAHALLI, HENAGARA POST-562 106. JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶22

M/S R K CORTINA A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.41, IST FLOOR, 8TH A MAIN, 2ND A CROSS, 4TH C BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR PAVAN KUMAR AGARWAL.

¶23

¶24

WP No. 3064 of 2019

¶25

MR SIVACHAITANYA REDDY SAIKAM S/O SRI S JAYACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT VILLA NO.309, ADARSH PALM RETREAT, DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 103.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. NANJEGWODA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. HARIPRASAD N., ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SRI. SUBBA REDDY N V., ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶28

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, AT K.G.F., ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.27/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners were plaintiffs before the trial Court

¶32

have sought for setting aside of the order passed on I.A.No.5 whereby, the trial Court has rejected application

¶33

filed under Order VI Rule 17 seeking permission to amend the plaint, whereby the plaintiff had sought to insert

¶34

¶35

WP No. 3064 of 2019

¶36

certain averments relating to the alleged execution of release deed dated 30.05.2016 by the plaintiffs as well.

¶37

It is the case of the plaintiffs that after defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying plaint averments. Defendant No.1 had narrated in the written statement regarding execution of release/relinquishment deed. It is further submitted that even in terms of the release deed defendant No.1 had not paid sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff as averred.

¶38

It is submitted that application was filed prior to commencement of trial and accordingly Court ought to have allowed the application and has grossly erred in rejecting the same.

¶39

Perused the impugned order. The trial Court

¶40

has rejected the application while observing that portion of the amendment relates to agreement of sale dated

¶41

¶42

WP No. 3064 of 2019

¶43

30.05.2016 which even as per the defendants had been cancelled.

¶44

Insofar as the release deed of 30.05.2016 is concerned Court has stated that the plaintiffs were aware of the same and have not sought to challenge the said release deed by seeking appropriate relief.

¶45

Having perused the impugned order it is clear that insofar as the agreement of sale dated 30.05.2016 no doubt the trial Court has rightly rejected the amendment application. However, insofar as the proposed amendment relating to execution of release deed the trial Court has grossly erred in recording a finding that the validity of the release deed has not been challenged. In fact the proposed amendment at para (c)(i) there is a clear prayer for seeking to set aside the release deed dated 30.05.2016. That apart it must be noted that the amendment application has been filed prior to commencement of the trial and accordingly, the Court

¶46

¶47

WP No. 3064 of 2019

¶48

ought to have been liberal in considering such application. Reasons are assigned as to why such relief relating to the release deed was not sought for at the first instance by stating that they came to know regarding the fraudulent execution of release deed only after written statement was filed by defendant No.1. It is further averred in the proposed amendment that amount as was required to be paid even under the release deed was not paid by the defendant No.1 and such a explanation is sufficient for allowing the application.

¶49

Needless to state that proof of such of the

¶50

averments is a matter of the trial and those are not relevant considerations while considering the amendment application. Accordingly, we find that the approach of the trial Court to be erroneous and the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, amendment is allowed. However, it is clarified that the relief insofar as cancellation of the agreement of sale as sought for in the prayer at para (c)(i)

¶51

¶52

WP No. 3064 of 2019

¶53

relating to the agreement of sale dated 30.05.2016 only is

¶54

rejected, other amendments are allowed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt Uma v. Sri C D Rajappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Uma v. Sri C D Rajappa

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

T D Puttaswamy Vs T C Hulluregowda

Syed Ghouse Dead by Lrs Vs v.Shekar

S K Swamiji Vs Smt Gangamma

J Manmohan Vs Padma Manjunath

Ravindranathricharn Hartman Vs Champak Hartman

Channegowda Vs M Divya