Dismissed

Mohammed Sami v. D Syed Nurul Hassan

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2024WP/23523/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed. The High Court held the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for impleadment in a suit for ejection was free from infirmity. It directed the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for title declaration.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Mohammed Sami Vs D Syed Nurul Hassan — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34857 WP No. 23523 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 23523 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMED SAMI S/O LATE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO 10, 2ND CROSS, SUSHEELA ROAD, DODDA MAVALLI, BANGALORE 560004

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. DAYAMANI S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

D SYED NURUL HASSAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE D SAYED ABBAS

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MALLIKA BEGUM AGED MAJOR

¶15

E/O LATE D SAYED ABBAS

¶16

BOTH RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT NO 168, ARMSTRONG ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560001

¶17

MASOOD KHAN AGED MAJOR S/O LATE AZEED KHAN

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:34857 WP No. 23523 of 2024

¶20

NO 170, HKP ROAD, BROAD WAY ROAD, BANGALORE 560051

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.MEHTER M AZZAM., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 03.08.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 10 AND I.A.NO. 11 IN SUIT S.C.NO. 15345/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL JUDE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBERS MACT, BANGALORE MAYOHALL UNIT SCCH-29 VIZ ANNX-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.10 FILED THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 CPC IN SUIT SC.NO. 15345/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBERS, MACT, BANGALORE, MAYOHALL UNIT SCCH-29 AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned counsel Sri Mehter M.Azzam, has entered

¶28

appearance for respondents No.1 and 2. Notice to respondent No.3 is not necessary for the following reasons:

¶29

The petitioner filed an application for

¶30

impleadment in a small causes case filed by the respondent No.1 and 2 herein seeking ejection of

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34857 WP No. 23523 of 2024

¶32

respondent No.3, the defendant therein. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the lawful owner of the property in question and therefore he should be impleaded and heard by the Small Causes Court. The Small Causes Court rejected the application on the ground that if the application is allowed, the nature of the case will be changed and if the applicant has any right or any interest in the suit premises he has to approach the appropriate forum. Moreover, the scope of jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court does not permit to decide a title dispute.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner however

¶34

seeks to contend that Section 16 of the Small Causes Court Act, 1964 mandates that when the right of the plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes, depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immoveable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may, at any stage of

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:34857 WP No. 23523 of 2024

¶37

the proceedings, return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title.

¶38

In the considered opinion of this Court the provisions sought to be invoked by the learned counsel namely Section 16 is to the parties already before the court. Here is a case where the petitioner is seeking to implead himself in a suit filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 against respondent No.3. Moreover the claim of the petitioner is that he is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property and therefore he should be permitted to contest the matter.

¶39

Having regard to the provisions sought to be

¶40

relied by the learned counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order. If the petitioner is seeking to establish

¶41

his title over the suit schedule property or he is apprehensive of the respondent taking advantage of any

¶42

decree that could be passed to eject respondent No.3 herein and the petitioner will be dispossessed, the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:34857 WP No. 23523 of 2024

¶45

petitioner is required to immediately approach the competent civil court seeking declaration of title or to injunct the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner.

¶46

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶47

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶48

KLY CT: JL

Mohammed Sami v. D Syed Nurul Hassan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sami v. D Syed Nurul Hassan

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

Smt. Alamelu Vs Sri. Rangadhamaiah

Mr. Denis Pinto Vs Mrs Leo Fernades

Sri. Pandith M Narasimha Acharaya Vs Shri. Bhadra Narasimha Devaru

Sri M S Balakrishna Vs Smt N S Uma

Smt Sunitha Sharma Vs Smt Pushpa D Gangalani

Sri Krishnaiah Vs Sri M N Narayanaswamy