Partly allowed

Shri. Hanamanth S/O Dundappa Metgud v. Shri. Rudrappa S/O Mallappa Zulapi

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024WP/102242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant in a suit for possession sought framing of additional issues on non-joinder and court fee; trial Court rejected the application. The High Court held the non-joinder finding needed no interference but directed an additional issue on suit valuation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; IA No.5 allowed only regarding valuation: trial Court directed to frame additional issue on suit valuation and take evidence; other prayer rejected.

Shri. Hanamanth S/O Dundappa Metgud Vs Shri. Rudrappa… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6253 WP No. 102242 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 102242 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI HANAMANTH S/O. DUNDAPPA METGUD, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULYAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI VITHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SHRI RUDRAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA ZULAPI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULYAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587010.

¶11

SHRI PANDITAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA ZULAPI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULYAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587010.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.04.19 11:53:39 +0530

¶15

(BY SRI PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR & SRI SANTOSH B. KANAL, ADVOCATES)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED 27.10.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI ON I.A.NO.V IN O.S.NO.157/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

¶18

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6253 WP No. 102242 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking for following relief:

¶22

“Issue a writ of certiorari or any other Writ quashing the Orders dated 27.10.2023 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi on I.A.no.v in O.S.no.157/2022 vide Annexure-F.”

¶23

Sri Vittal S.Teli, learned counsel for petitioner

¶24

s ubmitted that petitioner was defendant in OS no.157/2022 on file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, filed by respondents-plaintiffs for possession of suit schedule property. After petitioner entered appearance in said suit and filed written statement, trial Court framed following issues as per Annexure-C.

¶25

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are absolute owners of land bearing R.S.No.2/2 measuring 2 acres situated in Hulyal village Tq: Jamkhandi as on the date of suit?

¶26

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendant has encroached 1 acre 22 guntas towards eastern side of land of plaintiffs?

¶27

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of mandatory injunction directing defendant to hand over encroached portion of suit schedule property to plaintiffs?

¶28

1. Whether defendant proves that suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable in view of

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6253 WP No. 102242 of 2024

¶30

provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act?

¶31

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as sought for?

¶32

1. What order or decree?

¶33

Thereafter, petitioner filed IA no.5 under Order XIV Rule 1(5) r/w Section 151 of CPC, for framing of additional issues, namely, about non-joinder of necessary parties, on ground that survey report based on which suit was filed was in fact got prepared on an application filed jointly by 23 applicants and they would be necessary parties to suit and secondly, regarding insufficiency of Court fee. Though there was specific averments regarding above in written statement, trial Court under impugned order rejected application. It was submitted that same was unsustainable and therefore, sought for quashing of same and for allowing application.

¶34

On the other hand, Sri Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1 sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted that order passed was on proper consideration and does not call for any interference. Suit was properly valued and all necessary parties were impleaded and no relief was sought against other applicants.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6253 WP No. 102242 of 2024

¶36

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused writ

¶37

petition record.

¶38

From above, it is seen that petitioner, defendant in

¶39

suit had sought for framing of two additional issues, one regarding non joinder of parties and another regarding Court fees. Perusal of order impugned would reveal that there is no consideration insofar as issue regarding Court fees. Insofar as non joinder of parties, it observed that though application for survey was given by 23 applicants, since plaintiff did not seek for relief against others they were not necessary. Even in application filed by petitioner herein there is no specific reason stated about their presence in suit. It is settled legal position that only those parties without whose presence no decree can be passed, would be necessary and those parties whose presence would be necessary for passing of effective decree would be proper parties. Since application does not establish either of two requirements, framing of specific issue when plaintiff is not seeking relief against the others, may not arise. Therefore, prima facie conclusion of trial court on this aspect does not call for interference.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6253 WP No. 102242 of 2024

¶41

Hence, impugned order would be unsustainable only

¶42

insofar as issue regarding Court fees is concerned.

¶43

In view of above, writ petition is allowed in part.

¶44

Impugned order is modified. I.A. No. 5 is allowed in part.

¶45

Trial Court is directed to frame additional issue regarding valuation of suit properties and provide opportunity to parties to lead evidence on same.

¶46

Requirement of framing of additional issue in respect of other issue is rejected.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

VMB/BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Shri. Hanamanth S/O Dundappa Metgud v. Shri. Rudrappa S/O Mallappa Zulapi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Hanamanth S/O Dundappa Metgud v. Shri. Rudrappa S/O Mallappa Zulapi

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

Shri. Maruti S/O Babu Hundre Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ashok Hanumanthappa Vannal Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. C.G. Bellad and Sons Vs the Director

Shri.Lakkappa S/O Kenchappa Kalasannavar Vs Shri.Basalingappa Shivarayappa Belavi

Phupindar Singhn Ludhar Alias Pruthvia Singh S/O Santok Singha Vs the State of Karnataka

Nandi Recreation Association Vs the State of Karnataka