Allowed

Syed Shamas and Anr. v. Basavaraj and Ors.

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024WP/201316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs in a suit over two parcels of agricultural land challenged a Trial Court order allowing respondent No.5's impleadment as defendant. With respondent No.5 consenting to deletion if plaintiffs relinquish claim to 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.205, this court set aside the order and remitted I.A.No.3 for fresh consideration with directions permitting amendment.

What the court decided

AI extract

Syed Shamas and Anr. Vs Basavaraj and Ors. — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 201316 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SYED SHAMAS

¶11

S/O LATE SYED ISSA MIYA DAYAREWALE

¶12

AGE 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF H NO. 20/35/3, BYPASS ROAD DAIRA HUMNABAD DIST BIDAR – 585 330.

¶13

SYED ZOHA S/O LATE SYED ISSA MIYA DAYAREWALE

¶14

AGE 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF H NO. 20/35/3, BYPASS ROAD DAIRA HUMNABAD DIST BIDAR - 585 330.

¶15

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THROUGH GPA HOLDER SRI. SHASHIKUMAR S/O SHAMARAO POLICE PATIL, AGE 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF CHOULI VILLAGE TQ AND DIST BIDAR – 585 330.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R MALIPATIL,ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

BASAVARAJ S/O SHEELAPPA DANGE AGE: 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RANGE FOREST OFFICER, TERRITORIAL HUMNABAD DIST BIDAR – 585 330.

¶21

¶22

��

¶23

TERRIORORIAL RANGE FOREST OFFICER HUMANBAD

¶24

DIST BIDAR – 585 330.

¶25

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST TERRITORIAL BIDAR – 585 401.

¶26

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIDAR – 585 401.

¶27

SAKARAM S/O MANIKRAO CHAVAN

¶28

AGE: 66 YEARS OCCUAPTION: LEGAL PRACTITIONER, RESIDENT OF BYPASS ROAD DAIRA HUMANBAD DIST BIDAR – 585 330.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. MAYA.T.R, HCGP FOR R-2 TO R-4 SMT. RATNA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 RESPONDENT NO.1 D/W VIDE ORDER DATED: 10.12.2024)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

¶32

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING-ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUMANABAD ON IA NO.3 OS NO. 197 OF 2022 DATED 04.04.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE E, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS IA NO.3, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,

¶34

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

¶36

��

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶40

This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.NO.197/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Humanabad (for short “the Trial Court”), is directed against the impugned order dated 04.04.2024 passed on I.A.No.3, whereby the said application filed by respondent No.5 – impleading applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment as additional defendant No.5 was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶42

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.1 to 4 – defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The subject matter of the suit was land bearing Sy.No.204 measuring 26 acres 25 guntas as well as another land bearing Sy.No.205 measuring 29 acres 26 guntas. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent No.5-impleading applicant sought impleadment on

¶43

¶44

��

¶45

the ground that he was the alleged owner in possession and enjoyment of the a portion of the land bearing Sy.No.205/2 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas, which is a portion of one of the properties involved in the suit. The petitioners opposed the said application inter alia contending that if the claim of respondent No.5 – impleading applicant is restricted only to 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.205 out of the total extent of 29 acres 26 guntas claimed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit, the petitioners-plaintiffs could come up relinquishing their claim to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas and continue the claim as against respondent Nos.1 to 4 in respect of the remaining extent in Sy.No.205 measuring 26 acres 6 guntas and the impugned order may be set aside by directing the petitioners to relinquish/give up their claim in relation to 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.205 and by permitting the petitioners to continue the suit against respondent Nos.1 to 4 – defendants in relation to the remaining extent in Sy.No.205.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5impleading applicant submits that in the event the petitioners were to give up his claim in Sy.No.205 to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas owned and possessed by the impleading applicants and suitably

¶47

��

¶48

¶49

amending the plaint in this regard, respondent No.5 does not have any objections for the impugned order of impleadment to be set aside and the impleading applicant be deleted from the array of parties, which has been permitted in the impugned order.

¶50

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 by issuing certain directions in this regard.

¶51

In the result, I pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶54

(ii) The impugned order dated 04.04.2024 passed in O.S.No.196/2022 on I.A.No.4 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Humanabad, is hereby set aside.

¶55

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh in accordance with law.

¶56

(iv) It is directed that in the event the petitioners file an application for amendment of plaint and other pleadings giving up/relinquishing his claim in respect of 3 acres 20 guntas in

¶57

¶58

��

¶59

respect of Sy.No.205 claimed by respondent No.5, the Trial Court shall permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to carry out amendment forthwith without any delay.

¶60

(v) Immediately upon the said amendment being permitted by the Trial Court pursuant to which 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.205 would stand excluded from the subject matter of the suit, the Trial Court shall dispose of/dismiss I.A.No.3 filed by the impleading applicant.

¶61

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶62

BMC

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Syed Shamas and Anr. v. Basavaraj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Syed Shamas and Anr. v. Basavaraj and Ors.

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

Beerappa S/O Shankareppa Halli Vs Laxman and Ors.

Shankreppa Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Gurulingappa Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Neellamma Vs the District Commissioner and Ors.

Siddawwa and Ors. Vs State of Karnataka and Ors.

Vishwanath Reddy and Anr. Vs the State and Ors.