Dismissed

Thopaiah Since Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives Sri. Rangaswamy T v. Smt Sakamma

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024WP/31087/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order allowing third parties to be impleaded as respondents in a partition suit regarding disputed land titles. The High Court of Karnataka held that since the suit concerned multiple survey numbers and the respondents claimed independent rights, their impleadment was proper to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. I.A. No.1/2017 was disposed off with liberty to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court.

Thopaiah Since Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9318 WP No. 31087 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31087 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THOPAIAH SINCE DECEASED

¶8

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES,

¶9

SRI. RANGASWAMY T AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SON OF LATE THOPAIAH, R/AT DINNEPALYA, KAGGALIPURA POST, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 082

¶10

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S

¶11

1(a) SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE RANGASWAMY T., AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

1(b) SRI. NARENDRA KUMAR R., S/O LATE RANGASWAMY T., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶14

1(c) SRI. NATARAJU D.R. S/O LATE RANGASWAMY T., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶15

1(d) SMT. BHAGYA R D/O LATE RANGASWAMY T., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶16

1(e) SRI KUMAR R. S/O LATE RANGASWAMY T., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9318 WP No. 31087 of 2017

¶18

1(f) SRI. SRIDHAR R S/O LATE RANGASWAMY T., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶19

1(a) TO 1(f) TOGETHER RESIDING AT DINNEPALYA, KAGGALIPURA POST, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 082. AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 27.02.2024.

¶20

SRI. NANJAPPA T AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE THOPAIAH, R/A NO.47, NEAR TEMPLE, KENGERI PALYA, KENGERI POST, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 060

¶21

SRI. NAGARAJU T., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE THOPAIAH, R/A NO.17, 1^ST FLOOR, 10^TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR PIPELINE, CHOLUR PALYA, BENGALURU-560 023

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. ANANTHARAM G.R., ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED LRS OF DECEASED PETITIONER NO.1)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SMT SAKAMMA W/O LATE SRI PUTTARANGAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HER PROPOSED L.R.,

¶26

1(a) SRI. PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ADOPTED SON OF SMT. SAKAMMA, R/A NO.30, "SPOORTHI", BEHIND SOUDAMINI KALYANAMANTAPA, 2^ND CROSS, NEW BANK COLONY, NEAR KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU-560 008

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9318 WP No. 31087 of 2017

¶28

SRI. R. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAIAH, R/A DINNEPALYA, KAGGALIPURA POST, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 062

¶29

SMT. MARIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS, W/O LATE THERESAPPA, R/A NO.144, 5^TH CROSS, BDA LAYOUT, KONENA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560 017

¶30

SRI. LAWRENCE A., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O ANTHONY R, R/A NO.219/6, 9^TH CROSS, THIMMANNA GARDEN, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032

¶31

SMT. PAPAMMA AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS, W/O SRI. JOSEPH, R/AT NO.211, KALLAPPA COMPOUND, APPA RAO ROAD, 6^TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-18

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. GIRIDHAR H., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1(a); SMT. M.V.ANUPAMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶34

SRI. K. NARASIMHAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5)

¶35

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.1387/2005 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2015 ALLOWING I.A. NO.13 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9318 WP No. 31087 of 2017

¶37

CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 HEREIN WHO ARE THIRD PARTIES TO THE SUIT, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.1387/2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff in O.S. No.1387/2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru, have filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 24.11.2015 by which an application (I.A. No.13) filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC) was allowed.

¶41

The suit in O.S. No.1387/2005 was filed for partition and separate possession of several items of suit properties. Before the suit was set down for evidence, an application was filed by the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 herein to come on record as the defendants in the suit on the ground that they were interested in the property bearing Sy. No.42/3 situate at Uttari village, Uttarahalli

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9318 WP No. 31087 of 2017

¶43

hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was shown as item No.16 in the suit schedule properties. In support of their application, they contended that the land bearing Sy. No.42/3 was bifurcated in the year 1944-45 as Sy. Nos.42/1, 42/2 and 42/3. They claimed that the land in Sy. No.42/3 belonged to Sri Annigaiah. The said Sri Anngaiah had three daughters, namely, Smt. Arogyamma, Smt. Kitteramma and Smt. Lourdhamma. It is stated that Smt. Arogyamma died as spinster and the other two daughters of Sr Annigaiah are also no more. The Applicant No.2/respondent No.4 herein claimed to be grandson of Smt. Lourdhamma and applicant No.1/respondent No.3 herein is stated to be daughter of Smt. Lourdhamma and applicant No.3 / respondent No.5 is stated to be the granddaughter of Smt. Kitteramma. Smt. Chowramma, wife of Sri Annigaiah, sold the land in Sy. No.42/1 along with the other properties to Sri Gopaiah on 10.06.1945. They contended that the land in Sy. No.42/3 continued to be in possession and enjoyment of their family and the Tahasildar had changed the khata of

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9318 WP No. 31087 of 2017

¶45

the property in their favour. Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 herein further contended that the plaintiff / legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff challenged the revenue entries made in their names concerning suit item No.16 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, without arraying them as parties. Later the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 herein were impleaded in the appeal. They contended that they came to know of the suit filed by the plaintiff – Sri Thopaiah only upon being impleaded in R.A. No.244/2012-13 before the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, they sought for impleading in the suit to establish their independent right in so far as suit item No.16 is concerned and also establish that the said property was not available for partition. The Trial Court granted time to the plaintiffs to file objections to the application but, objections to the application were not filed. Therefore, the Trial Court held that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is appropriate to permit the applicants / respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 herein

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:9318 WP No. 31087 of 2017

¶48

to come on record as defendants in the suit as their interest was also involved in the suit property.

¶49

Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition

¶50

is filed.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners / legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff contends that the land bearing Sy. No.42/1 which was sold in the year 1945 measured 02 acres 20 guntas which encompassed land in Sy. Nos.42/2 and 42/3. But the survey numbers were wrongly shown as Sy. Nos.42/1 instead of 42/3. He further contends that in matters of dispute relating to survey number and boundaries, it is the boundaries which should prevail and therefore, respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 herein having lost their title in respect of the land in Sy. No.42/3 in the year 1945 cannot now seek for impleadment in the suit.

¶52

The question whether the land purchased by

¶53

the predecessors in title of the plaintiff was the land bearing Sy. No.42/1 or Sy. No.42/3, has to be established

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9318 WP No. 31087 of 2017

¶55

before the Trial Court. If the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 herein have any independent right, title or interest in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.42/3, they are entitled to come on record, since the suit filed is not only in respect of Sy. No.42/1 but also in respect of Sy. No.42/3. The documents produced by the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 herein along with the application for impleading shows that the revenue documents in respect of Sy. No.42/3 were made out in the name of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 herein and that the same was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner by the plaintiff/legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. Therefore, as rightly held by the Trial Court, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the applicants were entitled to come on record and establish that the suit property was not available for partition. There is no error committed by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court.

¶56

As a result, the petition lacks merit and is

¶57

dismissed.

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:9318 WP No. 31087 of 2017

¶59

¶60

I.A. No.1/2017 filed by the petitioners is

¶61

disposed off reserving liberty to them to file an appropriate

¶62

application before the Trial Court.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

SMA

¶65

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Thopaiah Since Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives Sri. Rangaswamy T v. Smt Sakamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thopaiah Since Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives Sri. Rangaswamy T v. Smt Sakamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Karnataka State Road Transport Vs R Venkatesh

M/S Enfrien Innovation LLP Vs the Food Corporation of India

Subhash Kumar Jain Vs N Prakash

Shaik Maula Ali Vs P. Anusuya

Mrs Geetha Mani P Shetty Vs Sri Ganesh Bangera

D a Mayura Vs Dr R Venkatachala Setty Since Dead by Lrs Dr v K Shivakumar