Dismissed

Sri Hanumantha Reddy v. Smt Nagaveni

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2024WP/18119/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought impleadment in a pending partition suit over de-notified land in Survey No.222, claiming family interest. The court found he had given up his claim in the property via a compromise decree in an earlier partition suit and that his application came at the fag end of trial. The writ petition challenging rejection of impleadment was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Hanumantha Reddy Vs Smt Nagaveni — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18119 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:

¶4

SRI HANUMANTHA REDDY, S/O LATE MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT KACHARAKANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶5

…PETITIONER

¶6

(BY SRI. SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK., ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND:

¶8

SMT NAGAVENI, D/O LATE MUNIRAJ REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NEAR JUNIOR COLLEGE SCHOOL, KACHARAKANAHALLI, ST.THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI, D/O LATE MUNIRAJ REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT 131, NALAGADRANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 073.

¶11

SMT. NAGAMMA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJ REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT 227, KACHARAKANAHALLI, OPP BTS BUS DEPO, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶13

SMT. JYOTHI, D/O MUNIRAJ REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.309, 3RD MAIN, SHANTHINAGAR ROAD, KALYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶14

SRI M N REDDY, S/O LATE A MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 3RD B MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, C M R ROAD, KALYANNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶15

SRI V CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O VEMULA ANJANEYALU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OFFICE OF THE NO.4 AND 5, 100 FEET ROAD, BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶16

SRI K SATISH, S/O MUNIRATHNA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OFFICE OF THE NO.4 AND 5, 100 FEET ROAD, BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶17

SRI PRAKASH PALANI, S/O PALANI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OFFICE OF THE NO.4 AND 5, 100 FEET ROAD, BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶18

SRI KRISHNA REDDY, S/O LATE AYYAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR CMR NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL,

¶19

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶20

ST. THOMAS TOWN POST KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶21

SRI M PAPAIAH, S/O LATE MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR CMR NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶22

SRI C RAJU, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KACHARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR CMR NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶23

SMT. M PRIYADARSHINI, W/O AYAPPAREDDY, D/O MUNINAYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO. 206, B BLOCK, NAGARJUNA APARTMENT, DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 561 203.

¶24

SMT. HEMA, D/O M N REDDY, R/AT NO.215, 7TH B MAIN, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, KALAYANNAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶25

SRI QUDEER AHMED, S/O S SHAFI AHMED,

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶27

R/AT 18/12, 3A, 13TH A CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶28

SRI SHAIKH BABU, S/O SHAIK AMEERJAN, R/AT 162/B, 2ND CROSS, GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD, A C POST, NAGAVARA, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶29

SRI K HARINATH SHEKAR, S/O S A KRISHNAPPA ALIAS KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.1918, SESHADRI NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, KACHARAKANAHALLI, NEAR CMR SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶30

SRI K JANARDHAN, S/O S A KRISHNAPPA ALIAS KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.1918, SESHADRI NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, KACHARAKANAHALLI, NEAR CMR SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶31

SRI K ASHOK, S/O S A KRISHNAPPA ALIAS KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT 1918, SESHADRI NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, KACHARAKANAHALLI, NEAR CMR SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI.N.K.KANTHARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI.T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; VIDE ORDER DATED 07.10.2021, NOTICE TO R-3, R-4 AND R-6 TO R-18 STANDS WAIVED)

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE OF 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 22.09.2021 PASSED IN I.A. UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN O.S.NO.6903/2012 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU ALSO HOLDING THE CONCURRENT CHARGE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-6) BENGALURU PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶36

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The applicant seeking impleadment in O.S.No.6903/2012 on the file of the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru City (CCH - 6) (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 22.09.2021, by which his application was rejected.

¶39

O.S.No.6903/2012 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was 1 acre of land in Survey No.222 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶41

Defendant No.3, contested the suit and filed a written statement contending therein that the suit property was allotted to the share of Krishna Reddy at a partition on 14.10.1974. The total extent of land allotted to the share of Krishna Reddy was 2 acres 26 guntas in Survey No.222. However, the entire extent in Survey No.222 came to be acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of HBR Layout. On the application made by the said Krishna Reddy for de-notification of 1 acre of land, the State Government de-notified 1 acre of land. The defendant No.3 contended that after such de-notification, he purchased the land from Krishna Reddy and therefore, the said property is not available for partition. Based on these contentions, the suit was set down for trial. After the conclusion of evidence, the suit was set down for arguments. The parties addressed the arguments and the suit was to be listed for judgment. Then, an application was filed by the petitioner to come on record in the suit.

¶42

The petitioner claimed that he recently came to

¶43

know about the suit filed for partition. He claimed that he, being the son of Muni Reddy, was not arrayed as a party in the

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶46

suit. He therefore claimed that he was entitled to come on record so as to claim his right in the land that was de-notified by the Bangalore Development Authority.

¶47

Defendant No.3 opposed the application,

¶48

contending that the total extent of land in Survey No.222 of Kacharakanahalli was 8 acres, which was proposed for acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority in the year 1978. In the year 1985, a final declaration was issued and an award was passed in the year 1987. The possession of the property was taken over by the Bangalore Development Authority. Thereafter Krishna Reddy, the owner of the land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in Survey No.222, made a representation before the Hon'ble Chief Minister to de-notify 1 acre of land out of 8 acres of land in Survey No.222. Consequently, the Bangalore Development Authority de-notified 1 acre of land, which was sold to defendant No.3 in terms of the Sale Deed dated 17.10.2010. It was contended that though the property which was de-notified was in respect of the land that fell to the share of Krishna Reddy in terms of the partition dated 14.10.1974, yet, the instant suit was filed for partition of that 1 acre of land.

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶50

It was also contended that the impleading applicant himself had filed the suit in O.S.No.2407/2002 for partition of a larger extent of the property and the said suit was compromised between the parties in terms of which the applicant had given up his share in respect of the suit property in favour of his mother, Smt. Kamalamma, who had conveyed the property measuring 2 acres and 26 guntas that fell to the share of his family members. It was therefore contended that the applicant had no subsisting interest in the suit property and therefore was not entitled to come on record, more particularly when the suit was set down for judgment.

¶51

The Trial Court, in terms of the impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that the applicant had already taken his share and had separated from the family, which was evident from the compromise decree in O.S.No.2407/2002. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

¶53

when the land was de-notified by the Bangalore Development Authority, the names of all the family members were

¶54

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶55

mentioned in the request submitted by Krishna Reddy to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. He had requested that 1 acre of land, which is in his occupation, be de-notified so that it would benefit him and his family members, which then comprised of 36 members, including the petitioner herein. He submitted that accordingly 1 acre of land was de-notified, which is the suit property. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is also interested in the suit property and is therefore a proper and necessary party.

¶56

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 submit that the land de-notified was favouring the entire family and not favouring only Krishna Reddy and therefore, the de-notification should enure to the benefit of all members of the family, including the petitioner herein. He referred to the representation made by Krishna Reddy to the Hon'ble Chief Minister seeking de-notification, where it was stated by Krishna Reddy as, " I am entitled to 20 sites i.e., one site for one acre of land. My family consists of 36 members. It is submitted I humbly request to consider my request sympathetically for de-notification one acre of land out of Sy.No.222 of Kacharakanahalli village, i.e., which is my occupation and

¶57

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶58

enjoyment. " He therefore contends that this 1 acre of land that was de-notified was towards 20 sites that the family was entitled to after acquisition of the land. Therefore, he contends that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to equal share in the suit schedule property.

¶59

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶60

It is not much in dispute that the land bearing Survey No.222 of Kacharakanahalli, measuring 8 acres, belonged to the family which was then helmed by Ayyappa Reddy. The said Ayyappa Reddy had four sons namely, Muniswamy Reddy, Muniraj Reddy, Muni Reddy and Krishna Reddy. At a partition between the sons of Ayappa Reddy on 14.10.1974, the land bearing Survey No.222 was divided in terms of which, Muni Reddy was allotted 2 acres 25 guntas, Muniraj Reddy was allotted 2 acres 25 guntas and Krishna Reddy was allotted 2 acres 25 guntas. Muniswamy Reddy was not allotted any portion in this land. Later the entire extent of

¶61

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶62

land was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority. An award was passed determining the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of land in Survey No.222.

¶63

Later, the said Krishna Reddy filed an application

¶64

seeking de-notification of 1 acre of land, which was in his occupation and possession. No doubt, while making the representation, he referred to the members of his family and has also claimed that the family was entitled to 20 incentive sites from the Bangalore Development Authority and therefore, he requested that 1 acre of land, which is in his possession and enjoyment, be de-notified. Accordingly, 1 acre of land was denotified on 13.01.2010. The de-notification was issued in the name of Krishna Reddy. The said Krishna Reddy and his children sold the said 1 acre of land to defendant No.3 in the suit. It is useful to refer to a suit filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.2407/2002 for partition and separate possession in respect of 2 acres 26 guntas in Survey No.222 that fell to share of his family. The said suit was filed by him and his brother against his mother and other brothers. In the said suit, the petitioner had specifically referred to the sale of 2 acres in Survey No.222 by his mother and the subsequent negotiation

¶65

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶66

to sell 26 guntas. The petitioner herein, therefore, categorically admitted that what was allotted to the share of Muni Reddy at the partition dated 14.10.1974 was encumbered already by his mother. This suit was compromised on 01.12.2005 in terms of which the petitioner gave up his claim in so far as Survey No.222 is concerned. Therefore, even in the contemplation of the petitioner, the property that fell to the share of his family in the year 1974 was disposed of. Therefore, the petitioner did not have any right, title or interest in the suit property. Consequently, he was not entitled to come on record in the suit and the Trial Court has considered these issues and has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to come on record. This apart, the application was filed at the fag end of the proceedings. Therefore, the application for impleadment was not bonafide and was rightly not entertained by the Trial Court.

¶67

In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application warranting interference. Hence, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:50267 WP No. 18119 of 2021

¶69

13 -

¶70

Any observation made by this Court during the course of this order, is only for the limited purpose of disposal this petition and shall not come in the way of the Trial Court

¶71

disposing off the suit on merits.

¶72

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶73

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri Hanumantha Reddy v. Smt Nagaveni

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Hanumantha Reddy v. Smt Nagaveni

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

Sri. Ramegowda Vs Sri. Chikkathammaiah

Sri. T. Ramesh Vs Sri. B.L. Ravindra

Smt B M Sharadha Prakash Vs Smt G R Parvathamma

G Kunhiraman Vs Bodan Kajjodi

Sri. Muniyappa Since Dead by His Legal Representatives Smt. Rathnamma Vs Smt Ramakka Since Dead by Her Legal Representatives Smt. Gowramma

Smt Kanthamma Vs Muniraju