Allowed

Sri R Ramesh v. Sri R Nagaraj

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024CRP/210/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed two civil revision petitions against the Trial Court's order dismissing an application for rejection of plaint. The court held that challenging a compromise decree in a new suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC. Relying on Sree Surya Developers, the court rejected the plaint as it sought partition without specifically praying to set aside the decree.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders rejecting applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are set aside, applications allowed, and plaint rejected.

Sri R Ramesh Vs Sri R Nagaraj — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31247 CRP No. 210 of 2021 C/W CRP No. 169 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 210 OF 2021 (IO) C/W CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 169 OF 2021

¶5

IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 210 OF 2021:

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI R RAMESH W/O LATE M RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YERS, R/AT NO.8/9, 1ST CROSS IYANNA SETTY LAYOUT BYTARAYANAPURA MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU PIN CODE-560 026.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ARUN K S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI R NAGARAJ S/O LATE M RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.6 1ST CROSS IYANNA SETTY LAYOUT BYATARAYANAPURA MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU PIN CODE-560 026.

¶13

SMT PUTTAMMA W/O LATE M RANGAPPA SINCE DECEASE BY LRS

¶14

SMT R SHANTHA W/O LATE H N NARAYANAPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31247 CRP No. 210 of 2021 C/W CRP No. 169 of 2021

¶16

R/AT NO.72/17, SHANTHI NILAYA IST FLOOR, 3RD A STREET IYANNA SETTY LAYOUT MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-560 026.

¶17

SMT R LALITHA W/O LATE S RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.54/10 3RD B STREET IYANNA SETTY LAYOUT MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-560 026.

¶18

SMT R BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE C M BEEDAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.-CHOKKANDALLI VILLAGE MADIWALA POST, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶19

SMT R INDRA W/O C M SHATHA RAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.-163, 6TH A MAIN REMCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560040.

¶20

SMT RADHA W/O R CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.-POLICE QUARTERS ANDANAIAH EXTENSION, KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130.

¶21

SMT R DAKSHAYANI W/O M PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.-215 AND 216 13^TH MAIN ROAD MANJUNATHA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.

¶22

SMT B PREMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O S BABU, R/AT NO.87

¶23

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31247 CRP No. 210 of 2021 C/W CRP No. 169 of 2021

¶24

3^RD CROSS, B H C S LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU PIN CODE-560 040.

¶25

SMT T M DIVYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O R LOKESH R/AT NO.2, 5^TH C CROSS GIRINAGAR, 3RD STAGE BENGALURU-560 085.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G M HEMANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7; SRI. JAGADEESH P, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & R9)

¶27

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2021 PASSED ON I.A.1/2018 IN O.S.NO.3005/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1/2018 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULES 11(a), (b) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC.

¶28

IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 169 OF 2021:

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SMT T M DIVYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O R LOKESH R/AT NO.2, 5^TH C CROSS GIRINAGAR, 3RD STAGE BENGALURU 560 085.

¶31

SMT. B PREMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O S BABU, R/AT NO. 87 3RD CROSS, B.H.C.S LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040.

¶32

…PETITIONERS

¶33

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH P.,ADVOCATE)

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31247 CRP No. 210 of 2021 C/W CRP No. 169 of 2021

¶35

AND:

¶36

SRI R NAGARAJ S/O LATE M RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO. 6, 1ST CROSS IYANNA SETTY LAYOUT BYATARAYANAPURA MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-560026.

¶37

SMT PUTTAMMA W/O LATE M RANGAPPA SINCE DECEASE BY HER L.RS..

¶38

SMT R SHANTHA W/O LATE H N NARAYANAPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.72/17, SHANTHI NILAYA IST FLOOR, 3RD A STREET IYANNA SETTY LAYOUT MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-560 026.

¶39

SMT R LALITHA W/O LATE S RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.54/10, 3RD B STREET IYANNA SETTY LAYOUT MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-560 026.

¶40

SMT R BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE C M BEEDAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.-CHOKKANDALLI VILLAGE MADIWALA POST, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶41

SMT R INDRA W/O C M SHATHA RAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.-163, 6TH A MAIN REMCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560040.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31247 CRP No. 210 of 2021 C/W CRP No. 169 of 2021

¶43

SMT RADHA W/O R CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.-POLICE QUARTERS ANDANAIAH EXTENSION, KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130.

¶44

SMT R DAKSHAYANI W/O M PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.-215 AND 216 13^TH MAIN ROAD MANJUNATHA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.

¶45

SRI R RAMESH W/O LATE M RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 8/9, 1ST CROSS IYANNA SETTY LAYOUT BYTARAYANAPURA, MYSURU ROD, BENGALURU-560 026.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G M HEMANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8)

¶48

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2021 PASSED ON IA.NO.3/2020 IN OS.NO.3005/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.3/2020 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULES 11(a),(c) AND (d) R/W ORDER 23 RULE 3-A OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶49

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31247 CRP No. 210 of 2021 C/W CRP No. 169 of 2021

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

The petitioners, who are defendants No. 2 to 4, have approached this Court challenging the order dated February 23, 2021, passed by the learned XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No. 3). This order rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a), (b), and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

¶54

The plaintiff filed a suit in OS No. 3005/2007 seeking partition and separate possession of the plaint 'B' schedule properties by granting a 43/100 share by metes and bounds, a permanent injunction, a declaration that the judgments and decrees dated October 23, 1982, in OS No. 2918/2018 and September 2, 1992, in OS No. 289/1992 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, and the grant of mesne profits. The plaintiff categorically asserts that the parties in the earlier suit had suppressed the execution of a will in favor of the plaintiff, and thereby fraudulently obtained the compromise decree. Therefore, the compromise decree is not binding on the plaintiff, who is entitled to a share.

¶55

The petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a), (b), and (d) of CPC, stating that the suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC. The Trial Court rejected this application, leading to the filing of this revision petition.

¶56

The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants No. 2 to 4 argues that the suit challenging the compromise decree is not maintainable as stated under Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC.

¶57

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31247 CRP No. 210 of 2021 C/W CRP No. 169 of 2021

¶58

They contend that the relief of partition can only be granted if the compromise decree is set aside. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order, and the plaint should be rejected. In support of this argument, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N Sailesh and others (AIR 2022 SC 1031).

¶59

In response , the learned counsel for the respondentPlaintiff argues that the plaintiff has not only sought to set aside the compromise decree and also seeks partition and separate possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property by metes and bounds. Therefore, when multiple reliefs are sought, the plaint cannot be rejected in part. The Trial Court, taking this into account, rightly passed the impugned order.

¶60

After carefully examining the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the following points are noted:

¶61

Defendants No. 2 to 4 claim to be purchasers of the suit 'B' schedule property from the plaintiff's mother. The plaintiff's mother entered into a compromise in the aforesaid suits. As per the terms of the settlement, the compromise decree was drawn, and under this compromise decree, the suit 'B' schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff's mother. The plaintiff was also a party to the said suit. After the plaintiff's mother conveyed the suit B schedule property, the plaintiff filed the present suit for partition and separate possession and also to declare the compromise decree as null and void.

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31247 CRP No. 210 of 2021 C/W CRP No. 169 of 2021

¶63

Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC deals with the bar to suit and states that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.

¶64

The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Sree Surya Developers and Promoters (supra) held that a party to a consent decree based on a compromise challenging the compromise decree on the ground that it was not lawful must approach the same court that recorded the compromise. A separate suit challenging the consent decree is not maintainable and would otherwise be barred by law. It was further held that in the suit, the plaintiff has not specifically prayed for setting aside the compromise decree but has only prayed for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on him. For the other reliefs sought, the suit would still not be barred and would be maintainable only if the compromise decree passed in OS No. 1750/2015 is set aside.

¶65

In view of the legal principles established by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case, the challenge to the compromise decree in the present suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The revision petitions are allowed.

¶68

ii) The impugned order dated 23.2.2021 passed on I.A.No.1/2018 (CRP No.210/2021), and I.A.No.3/2020 (CRP

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:31247 CRP No. 210 of 2021 C/W CRP No. 169 of 2021

¶70

¶71

No.169/2021) in OS No.3005/2007 by the learned XV Addl. City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.3) is hereby set aside, and consequently the applications are allowed, and the plaint in OS No.3005/2007 is hereby rejected.

¶72

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶73

BKM

Sri R Ramesh v. Sri R Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Ramesh v. Sri R Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Connaissance Asset Shoppe India P Vs Sri v Kiran Kumar

Hathun Bi Vs State of Karnataka

Chimes Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Balajaiah Vs Smt Lakshmamma

S Praveen Vs the Owner Havvalli Estate

Sri B v Srinivasaiah Vs Sri Narayanaswamy