Dismissed

Sri. R. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mr. B. Abdul Rahim Khan

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024WP/19305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a defendant in a suit for declaration of title and possession. The defendant challenged the trial court’s order allowing a plaintiff’s belated application to amend pleadings and add additional facts regarding construction and utility connections after trial commenced. The Court held the amendment was necessary for effective adjudicatio

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications (I.As.) do not survive and stand dismissed.

Sri. R. Srinivasa Murthy Vs Mr. B. Abdul Rahim Khan — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44505 WP No. 19305 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19305 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. R. SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE RAMAIAH AND SMT. ACHAMMA R/AT NO.1807, 35^TH MAIN, S.G KAVAL, THE KARNATAKA STATE 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEES LAYOUT, VISWANEEDUM POST, BENGALURU-560091. (BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

MR. B. ABDUL RAHIM KHAN AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O B. ABDUL LATEEF KHAN R/AT NO.79, 6^TH CROSS, POTTERY TOWN LAYOUT (WILLIAMS TOWN EXTENSION) BENGALURU - 560046

¶11

THE KARNATAKA STATE 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEES CENTRAL ASSOCIATION MULTI STORIED BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶12

SRI. B.M. NATARAJ PRESIDENT, THE KARNATAKA STATE 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEES CENTRAL ASSOCIATION MULTI STORIED BUILDING,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:44505 WP No. 19305 of 2023

¶15

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

SRI GOVINDARAJ GENERAL SECRETARY EMPLOYEES CENTRAL ASSOCIATION, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 31.08.2023, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 IS DISPENSED WITH;

¶18

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.07.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXVIII, ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY ON I.A.6 IN THE SUIT O.S.NO.6883/2015 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The defendant No.5 in O.S.No.6883/2015 pending trial before the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this petition challenging an order dated 28.07.2023 by which, an application (I.A.No.6) filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:44505 WP No. 19305 of 2023

¶26

17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') was allowed.

¶27

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioner herein was the defendant No.5, while respondent No.1 was the plaintiff. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 were the defendant Nos.1 to 3 before the Trial Court.

¶28

The suit in O.S.No.6883/2015 was filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and to declare sale deed dated 18.11.2010 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also sought for declaration that the gift deed dated 13.12.2010 executed by the defendant No.4 in favour of the defendant No.5 as null and void.

¶29

The plaintiff contended that he was a member of the defendant No.1 - association and that he was allotted a site bearing No.1807 formed in various survey numbers of Srigandadakaval, Gidadakonenahalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The possession of the said site

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:44505 WP No. 19305 of 2023

¶32

was delivered to him and that he was placed in possession of the suit property. He claimed that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 on behalf of the defendant No.1 executed the sale deed dated 23.06.2004 in his favour. He claimed that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 again allotted the said site to the defendant No.4 and executed a sale deed dated 18.11.2010. The defendant No.4 then conveyed the property to the defendant No.5 by executing gift deed dated 13.12.2010. The plaintiff claimed that defendant Nos.4 and 5 were threatening to dispossess him from the suit property. The plaintiff therefore, sought for the reliefs mentioned above.

¶33

The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.4 and 5 who contended inter alia that the site allotted to the defendant No.4 was bearing No.1807 measuring 30 feet x 40 feet situate at 35^th main road, 'C' Block, Sunkadakatte, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru. It was contended that the defendant No.5 had constructed ACC sheet roof house and had obtained electricity and water connection and was paying property tax to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44505 WP No. 19305 of 2023

¶35

Based on these contentions, the suit was set down for trial. After the evidence of PW.1 and when the case was listed for evidence of the defendants, an application (I.A.No.6) was filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to incorporate the additional pleadings and additional reliefs.

¶36

The said application was opposed by the defendant No.5 who contended that the application was filed belatedly and that the same was not required for the purpose of considering the suit reliefs.

¶37

The Trial Court after considering the reliefs sought for in the suit as well as the proposed amendment, felt that the amendment was necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute. Consequently, it allowed the application in terms of the impugned order.

¶38

Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant No.5 is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶39

The learned counsel for the defendant No.5 contended that an application for amendment could not have been allowed after the trial had commenced more particularly,

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44505 WP No. 19305 of 2023

¶41

in view of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. He contends that the defendant No.5 had specifically contended in the written statement that he had obtained electricity and water connection and was paying property tax to BBMP and therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have sought for the aforesaid reliefs. He contends that the plaintiff had already sought for the reliefs of recovery of possession and therefore, additional pleading sought to be incorporated by way of application was wholly unnecessary.

¶42

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant No.5.

¶43

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendant No.5 the plaintiff had sought for the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 also claimed title to the very same property under the defendant No.1. Therefore, the test would be whether the plaintiff was the first allottee or the defendant No.4 was the first allottee of site in question (suit property). Since the plaintiff has claimed that the defendant No.5 is in possession of the suit property, the application now filed for

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44505 WP No. 19305 of 2023

¶45

bringing on record the additional facts relating to the defendant No.5 constructing the building over the suit property and obtaining electricity and water connection, is relevant fact that

¶46

is required to be brought on record for the effective adjudication of the suit. The Trial Court has considered the

¶47

same in the right manner and has rightly allowed the application. There is no error committed by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court.

¶48

Hence, this writ petition lacks merit and is

¶49

dismissed .

¶50

In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.

¶51

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

PMR

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri. R. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mr. B. Abdul Rahim Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. R. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mr. B. Abdul Rahim Khan

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. Mukthar Ahmed Vs Sri. Syed Ibrahim

Sri C L Narayana Vs Sri Anjinappa

Sri Srinatha C Vs Sharath Kumar G R

Suman Saurabh Vs Hewlett Packard Enterprises Globalsoft Private Limited

Sri S Lakshminarasihma Vs Smt T P Kusuma

Sri. N S Suresh Rao Vs Smt. N B Bhavani Bai