Dismissed

Sri B C Muralidhara v. Smt C S Pushpavathamma

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024WP/2469/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A suit plaintiff challenged the Trial Court's order allowing the son of a decree-holder in an earlier partition suit to be impleaded and oppose a compromise. The High Court upheld the impleadment, holding the share was not demarcated until final decree, dismissed the writ petition, and stayed suit proceedings until disposal of pending final decree proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; all proceedings in O.S.No.384/2021 stayed until disposal of FDP Nos.4/2005 and 18/2018, which the Final Decree Court was directed to conclude within 1½ years.

Sri B C Muralidhara Vs Smt C S Pushpavathamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10909 WP No. 2469 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2469 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B.C. MURALIDHARA S/O LATE B.M. CHANDRAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT BHAGYA CHANDRA NILAYA, NEAR DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE, KATARIPALYA, KOLAR CITY, KOLAR-563101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GURUVA REDDY N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. C.S. PUSHPAVATHAMMA W/O NARAYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI NARAYANA REDDY H/O C.S. PUSHPAVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. SUDHARANI D/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶16

SMT. MANJULA REDDY D/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶17

DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE ALL R/AT CHIRALA VILLAGE, PUNGANOOR TALUK, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517247

¶18

SMT. R. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O R. OBALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10909 WP No. 2469 of 2022

¶20

SRI. R. OBALA REDDY H/O R. PADMAVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶21

SMT. MADHAVI D/O R. OBALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. SHAMALA D/O R. OBALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. HEMAGIRI S/O R. OBALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶24

SRI. T. VIJAYAPRAKASH S/O LATE T. THIMMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. DILIP S/O T. VIJAYAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶26

DEFENDANTS 5 TO 11 ARE R/AT KANGANAMBANDA VILLAGE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517414

¶27

SRI. R. ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE C.V. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶28

R/O PETECHAMANAHALLI, KOLAR-563101

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. SUNANDA SARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NO.12;

¶31

VIDE ORDER DATED 22.03.2022, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 11 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLAR, ALLOWING THE I.A.3 FOR IMPLEADING

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10909 WP No. 2469 of 2022

¶34

FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN O.S.NO.384/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶35

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The plaintiff in O.S.No.384/2021 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.12.2021 by which, an application (I.A.No.3) filed by respondent No.12 herein to come on record as defendant No.12, was allowed.

¶38

The suit in O.S.No.384/2021 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 5 as well as their children. The parties reported a compromise in the said suit. On the same day, the respondent No.12 herein filed an application to come on record contending that a suit in O.S.No.5/1993 was filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 5 for partition and separate possession and the said suit was decreed, by which the defendant Nos.1 and 5 were declared to be entitled to 1/6^th share each in the suit schedule properties and 1/6^th share which fell to the share of the defendant No.1 therein, was made over to the legal heirs

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10909 WP No. 2469 of 2022

¶40

of Mr. C.V. Ramakrishnappa. He claimed that he was one of the sons of Mr. C.V. Ramakrishnappa and was therefore, entitled to come on record and oppose the settlement that was entered upon by the parties.

¶41

The Trial Court noticed the earlier decree passed in O.S.No.5/1993 and held that the applicant was entitled to come on record as acceptance of the compromise would impair his right in the final decree proceedings that may be initiated in decree passed in O.S.No.5/1993.

¶42

Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed by the plaintiff.

¶43

The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the property purchased by the predecessor of the respondent No.12 herein was the 'B' schedule property in O.S.No.5/1993, which corresponded to the suit item Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 in the present suit. He therefore, submits that even if the decree passed in O.S.No.5/1993 is considered, then the respondent No.12 would be entitled to 1/6^th share in suit item Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 and he was not entitled to any share in suit item Nos.1 and 2. He submitted that even in the compromise petition that

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10909 WP No. 2469 of 2022

¶45

was reported, it was specifically mentioned that the sale deed would be executed in respect of item No.1, suit item Nos.3 to 6 and suit item Nos.2 and 3 only after the final decree proceedings in FDP Nos.4/2005 and 18/2008 is concluded. He therefore, submits that the interest of the respondent No.12 was sufficiently taken care of and therefore, he was not entitled to come on record and oppose the compromise petition.

¶46

The learned counsel for the respondent No.12 contended that the suit in O.S.No.5/1993 was decreed declaring that the predecessor of respondent No.12 was entitled to 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties and therefore, unless there was a clear division of the properties to which the predecessor of the respondent No.12 was entitled to, no settlement or compromise could be accepted by the Trial Court and therefore, in order to oppose the compromise, the applicant was entitled to come on record.

¶47

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.12.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:10909 WP No. 2469 of 2022

¶50

A perusal of the decree passed in O.S.No.5/1993 shows that the plaintiff Nos.2 and 9 therein, who are the defendant Nos.1 and 5 in the present suit were declared to be entitled to 1/6^th share each in the entire suit properties. Likewise, 1/6^th share of the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.5/1993 was allotted to the father of respondent No.12 herein. The question whether the father of the respondent No.12 was entitled to only the suit item No.3, 4, 5 and 6 or whether he was entitled to 1/6^th share of the defendant No.1 in all the properties in O.S.No.5/1993 was a question of fact, which had to be worked out in final decree proceeding. The plaintiff in O.S.No.384/2021 had overreached the process by filing a compromise petition and agreeing to purchase the properties that fell to the share of defendant Nos.1 and 5, which was not clearly demarcated. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in allowing the application to permit the respondent No.12 to come on record. There is no error committed by the Trial Court in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶51

Before parting, it is relevant to note that the right

¶52

of the defendant Nos.1 and 5 in the suit properties is yet to be

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10909 WP No. 2469 of 2022

¶54

crystallized as final decree proceedings are still on. Therefore, the plaintiff in the present suit has to wait for the outcome of the proceedings in final decree proceedings and therefore, cannot enter into a settlement with the defendant Nos.1 and 5 and agree to purchase specified portion of the suit properties from the defendant Nos.1 and 5.

¶55

Thus, this writ petition is dismissed . In order to ensure that there is no further wrangling in the case, all proceedings in O.S.No.384/2021 pending on the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, is stayed until disposal of FDP Nos.4/2005 and 18/2018 pending consideration before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kolar. The Final Decree Court is requested to dispose off FDP Nos.4/2005 and 18/2018, as early as possible, which at any rate, shall not be later than 1½ years from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

PMR

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri B C Muralidhara v. Smt C S Pushpavathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B C Muralidhara v. Smt C S Pushpavathamma

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 v Vani Vs Smt Saritha Bai K.M.

M Kempanna Vs Rajith N R

Mr Kedarnath Vs the Cosmopolitan Club (R)

S.a.Muniyappa Vs Smt Muninanjamma

Shri. T. Nagappa Vs Shri. Seenappa

M/S. Icici Bank Limited Vs Jeetendra Kumar