Disposed

K B Mahadevaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024RFA/938/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs sought leave under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and possession. The High Court allowed withdrawal on payment of Rs.10,000 costs, on condition that admissions made in the suit would not be withdrawn in the intended suit.

What did the court decide?

Application to withdraw suit allowed with Rs.10,000 cost to contesting defendants; admissions not to be withdrawn; appeal disposed.

K B Mahadevaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:40552 RFA No. 938 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.938 OF 2015 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K B MAHADEVAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶9

SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O LATE K.B. MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶10

KUM. LATHA D/O LATE K.B. MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.136/1, 5^TH CROSS, K.H. RANGANATH LAYOUT, OPP. TO BHEL, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-26.

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40552 RFA No. 938 of 2015

¶19

SRI. G. LINGAIAH S/O LATE N. GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶20

SMT. VIDIYAMMA W/O LATE N. GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶21

RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.2/1, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, DEEPANJALINAGAR, (DEEVITIGE RAMANAHALLI), BANGALORE -560 056.

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560 002

¶23

THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER CHANDRA LAYOUT, RANGE, WARD NO.41, GOOD SHED ROAD, BANGALORE -560017

¶24

SMT. SNEHA BAJAJ W/O RAMESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.404, ADARSH RESIDENCY, 47^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR. 8^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 082.

¶25

SRI. DINESH KUMAR BAJAJ S/O DEVAKINANDAN BAJAJ MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.F-104, ADARSH RESIDENCY, 47^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 8^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 082.

¶26

SRI. PUNITH BAJAJ

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40552 RFA No. 938 of 2015

¶28

S/O RAJANANDAN BAJAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.B-302, ADARSH RESIDENCY, 47^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 8^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 082.

¶29

SRI. PRASHANTH BAJAJ S/O PAWANKUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 502, ADARSH RESIDENCY, 47^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 8^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 082.

¶30

SRI. RAMESH KUMAR BAJAJ S/O DEVAKINANDAN BAJAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.404, ADARSH RESIDENCY, 47^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 8^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 082.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI T.P.MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SRI GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R11)

¶33

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.5628/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH 02) DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶34

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:40552 RFA No. 938 of 2015

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

An application under Order XXIII Rule 1-A r/w Section

¶39

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the learned counsel for the appellants. Application is supported by affidavit.

¶40

Plaintiffs have sought for withdrawal of the suit and to institute comprehensive suit seeking declaration and possession of his title on the very same cause of action.

¶41

Sri Ganapati Bhat, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 11 submits that since he has also sold the property, admission made in the suit shall not be withdrawn and with that condition and imposing suitable cost, application may be considered.

¶42

Having noticed that suit of the plaintiffs would fail on account of technicality, this Court is of the considered opinion that imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the plaintiffs to contesting defendants in all and further condition that admission made by the parties would not be allowed to be withdrawn, application stands allowed .

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:40552 RFA No. 938 of 2015

¶45

All contentions available to the parties are reserved to be canvassed before the appropriate Court in the intended suit in accordance with law.

¶46

It is made clear that admission made by the parties shall

¶47

not be allowed to be withdrawn in the intended suit.

¶48

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶50

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

K B Mahadevaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K B Mahadevaiah v. State of Karnataka

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 S M Channa Basappa Vs Sri G M Harish

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri.B.N. Nanjundaswamy

Shri K.S. Niranjan Vs Smt. Shashi S Prasad

Sri. Y. Bheemanna Vs Sri. Hanumantarayappa

Sri Mohan Kumar Vs Sri C R Suresh

Sri K Damodar Reddy Vs S P Thomas