Writ petition by defendant No.2 challenging orders allowing plaintiffs in a partition suit to reopen evidence and mark a death certificate under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14A CPC. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the death certificate crucial and permitting cross-examination on it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22862 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATASWAMY REDDY S/O SRI. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT BALAGERE CROSS ROAD, VARTHUR, BANGALORE-560087 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. BABU V.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
1(a) SMT. R. BHAGYA D/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.159 X 4TH MAIN, KATHRAGUPPE EAST, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560085.
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 16.10.2024.
NC: 2024:KHC:41904 WP No. 22862 of 2017
VARTHUR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560087.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.8;
VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01.2023, SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5;
NOTICE IS/ARE SERVED ON PROPOSED RESPONDENT NOS.1(a), 1(b), 1(d) AND 1(e);
NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.6, 7, 9, 10 AND 11; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.06.2024 NOTICE TO PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.1(c) IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.03.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ON I.AS UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CVIL PROCEDURE AND UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.871/2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ANNEXURE-N RESPECTIVELY, ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendant No.2 in O.S. No.871/2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') has filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 21.03.2017 by which an application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to reopen the plaintiffs’ side of evidence and another I.A. filed by them under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC to recall PW.1 to mark a document and one more application filed by them under Order VII Rule 14A of the CPC were allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:41904 WP No. 22862 of 2017
the sons of Sri Muniyappa @ Muneppa. The said Sri Muniswamy Reddy had two daughters, namely, Smt.Yellamma and Smt. Jayamma. Sri Muniyappa and his children, namely, Sri Muniswamy Reddy and Sri Ramaiah Reddy died intestate. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit schedule 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' properties were the joint family ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that taking advantage of the fact that they were residing at different places, defendant Nos.1 to 7 illegally got their names transferred in the revenue records relating to the suit properties. They claimed that their demand for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties was refused which compelled them to file the suit seeking for partition of their share in the suit schedule properties.
the share of Sri Muniswamy Reddy and the same were sold by him to his son-in-law - Sri Ramakrishna Reddy i.e., husband of the plaintiff No.1 on 11.05.1954. Subsequently, Sri Ramaiah Reddy @ Ramaiah purchased the same from Sri Ramakrishna Reddy under sale deed dated 18.05.1955. The sons of Sri Ramaiah Reddy, namely, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and their mother Smt. Puttamma partitioned the properties on 03.04.1970.
by Sri Muniswamy Reddy in favour of the husband of the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an application (I.A No.XXI) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC., to amend the plaint to bring on record the fact that Sri Muniswamy Reddy had not sold any portion of the suit properties on 11.05.1954 in favour of his son-in-law Sri Ramakrishna Reddy as Sri Muniswamy Reddy had died on 18.09.1952. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court in terms of the order dated 17.09.2016 and the same was confirmed by this Court in W.P. No.53582/2016 (decided on 24.01.2017). The suit was set down for arguments. The plaintiffs through their general power of attorney holder filed an
application under Section 151 of CPC to reopen their evidence and they filed another application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall PW.1 to mark the death certificate of Sri Muniswamy Reddy. The plaintiffs filed another application under Order VII Rule 14A of CPC., seeking permission to produce a document, namely, death certificate of Sri Muniswamy Reddy.
mere marking of the said document would not dispense with the proof of the document.
NC: 2024:KHC:41904 WP No. 22862 of 2017
therefore, every opportunity has to be provided to the plaintiffs to establish the fact that Sri Muniswamy Reddy died much prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the husband of the plaintiff No.1. She, therefore, contends that the Trial Court was right in allowing the applications in terms of the impugned orders. She contended that the defendants are always at liberty to establish the falsity of the death certificate that is to be produced before the Trial Court.
counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
NC: 2024:KHC:41904 WP No. 22862 of 2017
executed by Sri Muniswamy Reddy as he had expired by that time, the plaintiffs would be entitled to reliefs in the suit. Therefore, the death certificate sought to be produced by the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiffs / plaintiffs is a crucial document that is to be looked into by the Trial Court. This evidence cannot be shut out as doing so, would be causing injustice to the plaintiffs. The contention of the contesting defendants that this document is fabricated and concocted can be established by them at the time of cross-examination of PW.1. In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in allowing the plaintiffs to recall PW.1 and to mark the death certificate.
NC: 2024:KHC:41904 WP No. 22862 of 2017
interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to reopen evidence and recall PW.1 to mark Muniswamy Reddy's death certificate.
Whether the death certificate was a crucial document that could not be shut out from evidence.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Venkataswamy Reddy
Jayamma (deceased, by LRs)
R. Bhagya
C.R. Krishana Reddy
C.R. Shankar Reddy
Anjana Devi
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
