Dismissed

Sri Narasimhaiah v. Smt. Gangarathnamma

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2024WP/13997/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a trial court's decision allowing respondent No.13, who claimed ancestral ownership of suit item No.2 via a 1958 lease-cum-mortgage and disputed a 1988 sale deed, to be impleaded in a partition suit filed in 2008. The court upheld the impleadment order, holding respondent No.13 had to be heard before any decree over that property, and dismissed the writ petition while ur

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Narasimhaiah Vs Smt. Gangarathnamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:53197 WP No. 13997 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13997 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI NARASIMHAIAH, SON OF SRI NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT BANDAYANAPALYA VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. VASUNDARA T. P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P M., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. GANGARATHNAMMA, WIFE OF LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D/O LATE MUDDAIAH, R/AT RAJIV GANDHI COLONY, NO.457, KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶12

SMT. LAXMAMMA, WIFE OF SRI HANUMANTHAIAH, D/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT UDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHICKANAHALLI POST,

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:53197 WP No. 13997 of 2020

¶14

TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 562 103.

¶15

SRI. RANGAHANUMAIAH, R/AT BANDAYANAPALYA, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶16

SRI NANJAPPA, SON OF LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT VINAYAK NAGAR, COURT ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶17

SRI RANGASHAMAIAH, SON OF LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BANDAYANAPALYA, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶18

SMT. REVAMMA, WIFE OF LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, R/AT BANDAYANAPALYA, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶19

SMT MUNIYAMMA, D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:53197 WP No. 13997 of 2020

¶21

SMT. NARASAMMA, D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶22

SMT. HANUMAKKA, D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶23

SMT. LAXMAMMA, D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶24

SRI MUNIYAPPA, SON OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶25

SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BANDAYANAPALYA VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:53197 WP No. 13997 of 2020

¶28

13. SRI DEVANNA,

¶29

SON OF LATE ANNEPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BANDAYANAPALYA, KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 089.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI PRADEEP M., ADVOCATE FOR R13; BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R4, R6 AND R12 ARE SERVED;)

¶32

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.275/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.275/2008 AS PER ANNEXURE-E BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, ALLOWING THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION OF R-13 TO GET HIMSELF IMPLEADED AS DEFENDANT NO.7, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The defendant No.5(b) in O.S No.275/2008 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, is before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:53197 WP No. 13997 of 2020

¶38

05.04.2019, by which an application filed by respondent No.13 under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') was allowed and he was permitted to come on record and contest the suit.

¶39

(i) The suit in O.S No.275/2008 was filed for

¶40

partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ share in the suit schedule properties. Some of the defendants in the suit were placed ex-parte and the case was set down for evidence. At that stage, an application was filed by the respondent No.13 herein to come on record in the suit and contest the suit in so far as the land bearing Sy No.229/1A of Bandaiyana Palya, Kodihalli Village, Madhure Hobli, Doddaballapura District measuring 0-38 guntas.

¶41

(ii) It was the contention of respondent No.13 that the aforesaid property which was described as item No.2 in the suit schedule was his ancestral joint family property. He claimed that his father owned and possessed the aforesaid property and he executed a lease cum mortgage deed on 03.03.1958 in favour of the defendant No.4 in the suit in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas. He claimed that the said lease cum mortgage deed

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:53197 WP No. 13997 of 2020

¶43

was registered as document No.3603/57-58. He claimed that his father had cleared the mortgage money payable under the mortgage deed. The defendant No.4 had falsely conveyed 0-38 guntas out of 2 acres 20 guntas to the defendant No.5 on 29.02.1988. The respondent No.13 therefore, contended that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 was null and void and did not bind the interest of respondent No.13. He therefore, wanted to come on record to non-suit the plaintiffs and the defendants in so far as the suit item No.2 was concerned.

¶44

(iii) The said application was opposed by the legal representatives of the defendant No.5, who contended that the application was filed at the fag end of the proceedings. They also claimed that the claim of respondent No.13 that the property belong to his family was false and that respondent No.13 is not necessary for the decision of the suit. The Trial Court, after considering the contentions urged by the respondent No.13, allowed the application in terms of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.5(b) is before this Court.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:53197 WP No. 13997 of 2020

¶47

Learned counsel for defendant No.5(b) submitted that the application was filed at the fag end of the proceedings and therefore, the respondent No.13 could not have been permitted to come on record and re-open the case. She contends that, if the respondent No.13 has an independent right in respect of the suit property, he is bound to establish it in a proper suit and cannot seek for impleadment in the suit filed for partition.

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondent No.13 submitted that the suit item No.2 does not belong to the joint family and that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 in the suit is unconscionable and is null and void and therefore, the respondent No.13 being the lawful owner of the said property, is entitled to come on record in the suit and establish before the Court that the said property is not available for partition.

¶49

I have considered the submission of the learned

¶50

counsel for the defendant No.5(b) and the learned counsel for the respondent No.13.

¶51

The averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application pointedly show that the respondent No.13

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:53197 WP No. 13997 of 2020

¶53

claimed that he was the owner of the suit item No.2 and that an unlawful sale deed is brought about in respect of suit item No.2 in favour of defendant No.5. The only avenue available to the respondent No.13 to establish that the suit item No.2 is not available for partition is by getting impleaded in the partition suit. The Trial Court has considered the same earnestly and had rightly held that the respondent No.13 has to be heard before passing any decree in respect of the suit property. Consequently, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in the impugned order warranting interference in this writ petition.

¶54

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶55

Since the suit is filed in the year 2008, the Trial Court is requested to dispose off the suit as early as possible at any rate within a period of six months from the date of reopening of the Court after winter vacation, 2024.

¶56

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶57

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri Narasimhaiah v. Smt. Gangarathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Narasimhaiah v. Smt. Gangarathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.S.Sachidananda Vs Nirmala Ganga Education Trust

Tci Express Ltd. Vs Maxon Precision Motor India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. v. Manohar Vs Smt. K.J. v. Jayalakshmi

Tanuja Sathish Kumar Vs Mrs. K Anuradha

Sri Galappa Vs Hanumantharayappa