Dismissed

Smt. Prabhamani Bai v. Smt. Shobavathi @ Shobavathibai

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024RP/472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition against an order in a civil revision concerning maintainability of a suit and rejection of plaint. The court held that succession to the deceased father's estate raised triable issues on right, title and interest and the nature of the property, and declined to review.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed with liberty to agitate all issues before the trial court.

Smt. Prabhamani Bai Vs Smt. Shobavathi @ Shobavathibai — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46141 RP No. 472 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 472 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PRABHAMANI BAI W/O. SRI. NAGARAJ RAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 443, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶8

SMT.N INDUMATHI D/O SRI NAGARAJ RAO W/O SRI RAVINDRANATH SINDHIA AGED 45 YEARS, C/O NO.443, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 086

¶9

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

PERMANENT R/AT NO.1, CASSANDRA COURT, MONROE TOWHSHIP, NEW JERSEY 08831 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

¶11

PETITIONER 1 AND 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POA, PETITIONER NO.3

¶12

SMT.N.YAMUNABAI D/O SRI NAGARAJ RAO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.443, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD,

¶13

2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:46141 RP No. 472 of 2024

¶15

¶16

BENGLAURU-560086.

¶17

RAMACHANDER SYLESH JADAV, H/O LATE N.BINDUMATHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶18

SIDHANTH SYLESH JADAV S/O LATE N.BINDUMATHI, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

¶19

NISHANTH SYLESH JADAV S/O LATE N.BINDUMATHI, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

¶20

PETITIONERS 4 TO 6 ARE R/AT. 1274, SKYVIEW CT., MECHNICSBURG, PA-17050 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POA, PETITIONER No.3, SMT.N.YAMUNABAI.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. KRISHNA B S.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SMT. SHOBAVATHI @ SHOBAVATHIBAI W/O SRI NAGABHUSHANA RAO D/O SRI NAGARAJ RAO AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT C/O RAMSHEKHAR BUILDING K.H.B. COLONY, NEAR WATER TANK GANAPATHI TEMPLE, WARD NO.30 IJOOR RAMANAGARA-571 511.

¶25

SRI.R.NAGARAJ RAO S/O LATE . RANOJI RAO AGED 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.443, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560086 (SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS)

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46141 RP No. 472 of 2024

¶27

R.CHINNUBAI @ R.SHANTHABAI D/O LATE L.RANOJI RAO, AGED 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.375, 60 FEET ROAD, MEI LAYOUT OPP MEI PLAYGROUND BAGALUGUNTTE, NAGASHANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560073.

¶28

SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SRI NAGARAJ RAO AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.443, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560086.

¶29

SMT.ANNAPURNA D/O SRI NAGARJ RAO AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.443, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶30

SMT.N.BINDUMATHI D/O SRI NAGARAJ RAO AGED 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.443, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560086. (SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LRS., PETITIONERS 4 TO 6)

¶31

M/S. PRIDE AND EXPERTS PROPERTIES PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MURALILAL SARAGI HAVING OFFICE NO.16/1, CRESCENT ROAD, AMERICAN COLONY BHAVANI MANSION KUMARA PARK EAST BANGALORE-560 001.

¶32

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI CHIKKANNA C

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:46141 RP No. 472 of 2024

¶35

AGED 70 YEARS, NO.39/2, K.R.MAIN ROAD, KARISANDRA, BANASHANKARI, 2^ND PHASE, BANGALORE-560070.

¶36

SRI.CHIKKANNA C S/O LATE CHIKKAPUTTEGOWDA AGED 78 YEARS, NO.39/2, K.R.MAIN ROAD, KARISANDRA, BANASHANKARI 2^ND PHASE, BANGALORE-560 070.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE (1), R/W SECTION 114, R/W SECTION 152 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 269 OF 2022 AND ETC.

¶39

THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

Notice to the Respondents is dispensed with in view

¶43

of the proposed order to be passed.

¶44

The petitioners are before this court seeking for the

¶45

following reliefs:

¶46

i. Review the Order dated 03.09.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 269 of 2022;

¶47

ii. Pass any such other suitable order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems it appropriate in the admitted facts and

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:46141 RP No. 472 of 2024

¶50

circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity.

¶51

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to para 12 of the order dated 3.09.2024, which is subject matter of review is that once this Court came to a conclusion that the suit was not maintainable when filed, this court ought to have rejected the plaint and in that regard he relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ELDECO

¶52

Housing and Industries Limited -v- Ashok Vidyarthi and Others¹ , more particularly para 25 and 26 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶53

25. The application for rejection of the plaint was filed by the respondent claiming that prior to MoU dated 31.8.1995 (registered on 01.09.1998), the MoU was entered into between the parties on 15.04.1998 and subsequent to the aforesaid MoUs, an agreement was executed on 02.09.1998. In the aforesaid agreement, it was clearly mentioned that in case the litigation of the vendor regarding the property in question is not decided after one year, the vendee will have the right to get his earnest money back along with interest @ 18% per annum. In fact, the vendee had issued a notice on 22.03.2001 seeking refund of the earnest money. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the suit for specific performance filed after dismissal of the suit for

¶54

1 (2023 live law) SC 1033

¶55

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46141 RP No. 472 of 2024

¶56

injunction was barred under Orde II Rule 2 CPC and deserved to be rejected.

¶57

26. However, the fact remains that all the aforesaid documents, referred to by the respondent in support of his plea for rejection of the plaint, cannot be considered at this stage as these are not part of the record with the Court filed along with the plaint. This is the stand taken by the respondent-defendant in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. As noticed above, no amount of evidence or merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of decision of the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Hence, in our view, the impugned order of the High Court passed in the Review Application deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.

¶58

The submission made is that no amount of evidence or merits of the controversy subsequent to the filing of the plaint can be looked into for the purpose of consideration of application under Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶59

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that in insofar as the present case is concerned, after the filing of the plaint when the father had expired, though the plaintiffs did not have right over the property during the lifetime of the father, when the application was required to be considered, the father having expired

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:46141 RP No. 472 of 2024

¶62

and the plaintiffs having succeeded to the estate, it could not be said that the plaintiff did not have any right, title or interest over the property.

¶63

The fact remains that the father had expired and the plaintiffs had succeeded to a portion of the estate, the aspect of succession, also as regards the nature of the suit schedule property, whether it is a joint family property or not, as regards which the plaintiffs has succeeded or not, would all be subject matter of trial and that is what has been held by this Court while passing the aforesaid order at paragraphs No. 18 and 19. Hence, I do not see any reason to review the order.

¶64

Reserving liberty to the petitioners to agitate all issues before the trial court, the petition stands dismissed.

¶65

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶66

LN,List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Smt. Prabhamani Bai v. Smt. Shobavathi @ Shobavathibai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Prabhamani Bai v. Smt. Shobavathi @ Shobavathibai

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

Citizen Education Society Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Rjs Polytechnic Vs All India Council for Technical Education

Keertan Suresh (Minor) Vs State of Karnataka

Shri K Prabhakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Vidyagiri House Building Co. Operative Society Limited Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies in Karnataka

Sri. B. Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka