Allowed

Ranganatha Reddy v. Shamanna

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023WP/58961/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a non-speaking order allowing legal representatives to come on record in final decree proceedings. The High Court held the trial court failed to apply its mind to objections and set aside the order, directing a reasoned disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.04.2016 allowing applications and the consequential order dated 01.07.2016 were set aside. The trial court was directed to decide on merits within one month.

Ranganatha Reddy Vs Shamanna — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.58961 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RANGANATHA REDDY

¶9

S/O. NAKKALU NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶10

NARAYANA REDDY

¶11

S/O. NAKKALU NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶12

KRISHNA REDDY

¶13

S/O. NAKKALU NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶14

RAMASWAMY REDDY S/O. NAKKALU NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶15

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ALL ARE R/AT KUGURU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106.

¶17

(BY SRI.VARADARAJAN M S.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

SHAMANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS:

¶21

[ LEELAMMA W/O. LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT KUGURU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI,

¶22

¶23

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶24

ANEKAL TALUK-562 106

¶25

RAJENDRA PRASAD S/O. LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶26

VASANTHA KUMARI D/O. LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶27

USHA DEVI D/O. LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶28

GANESH ANAND KUMAR S/O. LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KUGURU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106

¶29

NAKKALU NANJUNDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS:

¶30

GOWRAMMA, D/O.NAKKALU NANJUNDAPPA, W/O.THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLAHALLI, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106

¶31

SHANTHAMMA D/O. NAKKALU NANJUNDAPPA, W/O. MALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADIWALA, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 068.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI.G.A.VISHWANATHA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R- 5;

¶34

¶35

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶36

NOTICE SERVED TO R-6 & UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R-7 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D.22.06.2022)

¶37

THIS W.P.IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE DTD20.4.2016 PASSED IN FDP NO.4/1980 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL [ANNEXURE-A] & ETC.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Heard learned counsel Mr. M.S. Varadarajan, appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned counsel Mr. G.A. Vishwanatha Reddy for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Respondent No.6 though served, is unrepresented. Notice to respondent No.7 is dispensed.

¶41

Petitioners are questioning the order dated 20.04.2016 passed in FDP No.4/1980 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Anekal, by which order all the four applications filed by the respondents 1 to 5, who are legal representatives of the original plaintiff, under Order XXII Rule 4, Order XXII Rule 9, Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, are allowed by a cryptic, non-speaking and perfunctory order.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶44

Petitioners also consequentially question the order dated 01.07.2016 passed in the very same FDP, pursuant to the application being allowed, Tahsildar and PDO of Grama Panchayat, Kugur Village came to be appointed as Court Commissioner for dividing the suit landed properties as per the decree passed in OS No.510/1969 and modified in RA No.51/1976.

¶45

Admittedly, one Shamanna, original plaintiff filed OS No.510/1976 on the file of the then Court of Munsiff, Bangalore for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties. The said suit was partly decreed and thereafter in RA No.51/1976 vide judgment dated 04.08.1976 the remaining part of the relief which was not granted came to be granted in favour of the plaintiff in its entirety.

¶46

Pursuant to the said RA, original plaintiff – Shamanna filed FDP No.4/1980 seeking partition of the suit schedule properties by meets and bounds. After filing final decree proceedings the original plaintiff did not take any steps

¶47

¶48

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶49

to pursue the matter and the matter was adjourned day to day without taking any action.

¶50

It is averred that on 29.10.2006 original plaintiff – Shamanna died, despite which matter went on for orders though no LR application came to be filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Shamanna.

¶51

It is submitted that after lapse of seven years, respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are legal representatives of the original plaintiff - deceased Shamanna filed three applications as aforestated to bring the LRs of the original plaintiff on record, to set aside abatement and to condone the delay.

¶52

The petitioners herein, who are respondents / defendants filed detailed statement of objections to the said applications by taking several contentions to dismiss the said applications. The said objections are produced along with this writ petition at Annexures-E & E1.

¶53

There is no dispute that the objections were preferred by the petitioners before the final decree proceedings. However, by an order dated 20.04.2016, the trial Court proceeded to pass the following order:

¶54

¶55

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶56

“ “37. Respondent no.2 to 5 absent

¶57

Counsel for respondent no.2 to 5 also absent.

¶58

Arguments by respondents no.2 to 5 on IA’s U.O 22 rule 4, U/o 22 rule 9, U/sec.5 of limitation Act and U/o 1 rule 10(2) of CPC taken as not filed.

¶59

IA’s U/o 22 rule 4, U/o 22 rule9, U/sec.5 of Limitation act and U/o 1 rule 10(2) of CPC are allowed on cost of Rs.300/- each. L.R’s of petitioner permitted to come on record.

¶60

Petitioner (a to e) are permitted to carry out amendment and furnish amended petition by 01-06-2016.

¶61

Sd/- 20/4/2016

¶62

Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC

¶63

The applications filed by the petitioners were allowed and petitioners in the FDP proceedings are permitted to carry out amendment and furnish amended petition. Thereafter pursuant to the order passed on these three applications the final decree proceedings are continued and by an order dated 01.07.2016 an order came to be passed by the trial Court appointing the

¶64

¶65

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶66

Tahsildar, Anekal and PDO of Grama Panchayath, Kugur Village as Court Commissioners for diving the properties as per the decree passed in OS No.510/1969.

¶67

It is vociferous contention of the learned counsel Mr. M.S. Varadarajan, appearing on behalf of petitioners that the trial Court has passed a very cryptic, non-speaking and perfunctory order without applying its mind and without considering the objections filed by the petitioners, therefore, the same is a non-speaking order. He further contends that the trial Court ought to have considered the objections filed by the petitioners and passed a reasoned order rather than passing a cryptic, non-speaking and perfunctory order.

¶68

Per contra, learned counsel Mr. G.A. Vishwanatha Reddy, appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 contends that in view of absence of petitioners in the final decree proceedings the trial Court was perforced to proceed with the matter and since no argument was addressed, it allowed the application and no harm is caused to the petitioners by allowing the applications as the suit is for partition and FDP would enable both the parties to get their share.

¶69

¶70

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶71

I am in agreement with the arguments put forth by

¶72

the learned counsel for petitioners with regard to non-speaking and cryptic order passed by the trial Court and I am afraid the arguments of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 cannot be sustained on the ground that the objections to the said applications were filed and the trial Court is required to and bound to pass orders on the basis of the material produced before it, even if the learned counsel for the petitioners is not present before the Court.

¶73

Admittedly, in the case on hand the objections are

¶74

on record and not considered by the trial Court and reasoned and speaking order is not passed by the trial Court, it would infer non-application of mind. Therefore, order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the order would have to be set aside consequentially order passed on the three applications would also not survive due to it being a non-speaking order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the arguments putforth by the learned counsel for petitioners is appealing and sustainable.

¶75

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶76

¶77

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶78

ORDER

¶79

(1) The writ petition is allowed.;

¶80

(2) The order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Anekal, vide Annexure-A, in FDP No.4/1980 is set aside. Consequently, allowing of all the three applications filed by the petitioners under Order XXII Rule 4, Order XXII Rule 9, Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, are set aside and quashed.

¶81

(3) Consequent order dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Anekal, vide AnnexureA, in FDP No.4/1980 subsequent to order dated 20.04.2016 in continuation of the applications being allowed, also deserves to be set aside and it is set aside.;

¶82

(4) The trial Court is directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioners herein, who are respondents in FDP proceedings and give an opportunity to the counsel to address his

¶83

10 -

¶84

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶85

arguments and decide the matter on merits of the applications preferred under Order XXII Rule 4, Order XXII Rule 9, Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, by giving reasonable opportunity to all the parties on record and to pass a reasoned order.

¶86

(5) It is needless to mention that any order that would be passed on these three applications would follow subsequent orders with regard to appointment or otherwise of any Court Commissioner to proceed with the matter and divide the schedule properties by metes and bounds.;

¶87

(6) In view of the fact that the FDP proceedings is of the year 1980 and Original Suit is of the year 1969 and the decree passed in RA is of the year 1976, this matter requires utmost priority, hence the trial Court shall consider these three applications and decide them on merits within one month from the date of receipt of the copy

¶88

11 -

¶89

WP No. 58961 of 2016

¶90

of this order or otherwise furnishing of the same by both the learned counsel before the Court.;

¶91

(7) Both the parties shall co-operate with trial Court for expeditious disposal of the said applications within the time stipulated in this order.;

¶92

(8) It is needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the said three applications.;

¶93

(9) In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the pending IAs do not survive for consideration. Hence, the same are consigned to records.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Ranganatha Reddy v. Shamanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranganatha Reddy v. Shamanna

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

Dr Kanduri Ramanujacharyulu Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Mohammed Sanaulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Sindhu Rajasekhar Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Pavankumar M Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Uma @ Soumya Vs Prathap M

Rangaswamy Vs Naganna @ Nagaraja