Allowed

Major General (Retd) R.P. Ramachadnra Naidu v. Mrs. Vijayamma

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2024WP/31251/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An allottee of villa No.29, purchased during pendency of a partition suit, challenged rejection of his impleading application in final decree proceedings. The High Court allowed him to come on record for the limited purpose of working out equity so his villa falls to defendants' share.

What did the court decide?

Trial court's order rejecting impleading application set aside; petitioner permitted to come on record in FDP for limited purpose of working out equity.

Major General (Retd) R.P. Ramachadnra Naidu Vs Mrs. Vijayamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:53182 WP No. 31251 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31251 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAJOR GENERAL (RETD) R.P. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU, AGED 83 YEARS, R/AT VILLA NO.29, YELAHANKA, PART B BILAMARANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 562 157. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RAJESH S.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA

¶11

MRS. VIJAYAMMA, DO LATE KRISHNA SWAMY, W/O LATE G V SRINIVASA IYER, AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT BILLAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, VIDYANAGARA POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 157.

¶12

MRS SUSHEELAMMA, DO LATE B K KRISHNA SWAMY, W/O SATHYANARAYANA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT SADAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:53182 WP No. 31251 of 2024

¶14

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -562 157.

¶15

MR B K SUBRAMANYAM SO LATE B KRISHNASWAMY, AGED 72 YEARS,

¶16

MR B K RAMANATH, S/O LATE B KRISHNASWAMY AGED 65 YEARS,

¶17

MR B K SHESHADRI S/O LATE B KRISHNASWAMY, AGED 62 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE

¶18

R/AT BILLAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, VIDYANAGAR POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 157.

¶19

M/S PRASIDDHI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT.

¶20

REP BY ITS DIRECTORS

¶21

K SUBRAMANYA RAJU, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.401/2, SWASTHIK MANDAL ARCADE, F4, FIRST FLOOR, S C ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE 560 020.

¶22

M/S PRASIDDHI PROPERTIES PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT.

¶23

REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, B SRINIVASA, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.401/2, SWASTHIK MANDAL ARCADE, F4, FIRST FLOOR, S C ROAD,

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:53182 WP No. 31251 of 2024

¶25

SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE 560 020.

¶26

ARMY WELFARE HOUSEING ORGANIZATION, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. REP BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR (BEHIND VENKATESHWARA ENGINEERING COLLEGE) UTTANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BILLAMARANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 157.

¶27

PARASIDDHI ASPIRATIONS PLOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION (REGISTERED) SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VILLA NO.223, PRASSIDHI ASPIRATIONS LAYOUT, OFF NEW AIRPORT ROAD, BILLAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE 562 157. REP BY ITS MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MATHEW GEORGE.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. KAMALESHWARA POOJARY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.11.2024, NOTICE TO R3 TO R9 DISPENSED WITH)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/11/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI ON IA NO. IX FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN FDP NO. 14/2022, BY ISSUING A WRIT IN A NATURE OF

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:53182 WP No. 31251 of 2024

¶32

CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The proposed respondent in FDP No.14/2022 pending consideration before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, is before this Court challenging the rejection of his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC').

¶37

A suit in O.S No.492/2010 was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property bearing Sy No.37, 6/3 and 7/4 of Bilmaranahalli Village, measuring 3 acres 38 guntas, 0.06 guntas and 0.07 guntas respectively. The suit on contest was decreed declaring that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to 1/5^th share in the aforesaid properties. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 had entered into certain transactions in respect of the aforesaid properties which resulted in the development of a residential layout for the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:53182 WP No. 31251 of 2024

¶40

respondent No.8 herein. The petitioner herein was an allotee of a villa bearing No.29.

¶41

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 initiated the final decree proceedings in FDP No.14/2022 for demarcation of their 1/5^th share each in the suit schedule properties. The commissioner was appointed for the aforesaid purpose. The commissioner found that the land in question was converted for non- agricultural residential use and villa plots were formed therein. Therefore, the commissioner in his report held that villa Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ,14 and 15 could be allotted to the share of plaintiffs /respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶42

(ii) The petitioner who had purchased plot No.29, filed an application in the final decree proceedings to come on record and claim that the villa plot purchased by him be allotted to the share of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. The Final Decree Court, in terms of the impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had specifically stated that the villa plot purchased by the petitioner would not be affected by the Final decree as the said villa was allotted to the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:53182 WP No. 31251 of 2024

¶45

share of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this petition was filed.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had purchased villa No.VA2 -29 in terms of sale deed dated 09.11.2011, which was during the pendency of the suit. He submits that the property purchased by the petitioner had to be allotted to the share of the defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 so as to workout equity. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khemachand Shankar Choudhary and others Vs. Vishnu Hari Patil and others [AIR 1983 SC 124].

¶47

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the petitioner has purchased a villa bearing No.VA2-29, which did not fall to the share of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, any final decree that may be drawn would not affect the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

¶48

It is evident from the records that the suit property was part of a residential development for the purpose of respondent No.8. The petitioner had purchased a villa plot

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:53182 WP No. 31251 of 2024

¶51

from the respondent No.8 during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, while working out the shares of respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the Court was bound to demarcate the properties that fell to their respective share. Accordingly, a commissioner was appointed who reported that the villa Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 could be allotted to the share of respondent Nos.1 and 2, while remaining could be allotted to the share of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. This, therefore meant that the property purchased by the petitioner was allotted to the share of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. Therefore, for the limited purpose of enabling the petitioner to claim the property in Final Decree proceedings, the petitioner ought to have been brought on record so as to workout equity in favour of the petitioner. This also would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and uncertainity of the title of the petitioner. The Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the villa No.VA2-29 purchased by the petitioner did not fall to the share of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶52

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed .

¶53

The order passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to come on record in Final Decree proceedings only

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:53182 WP No. 31251 of 2024

¶56

for the limited purpose of working out equity so as to allot the villa purchased by the petitioner to the share of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, so as to regularize the title of the petitioner in

¶57

respect of the plot purchased by him.

¶58

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶59

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Major General (Retd) R.P. Ramachadnra Naidu v. Mrs. Vijayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Major General (Retd) R.P. Ramachadnra Naidu v. Mrs. Vijayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Gowrish S K Vs Sri Anil Kumar P

M/S Corporate Strategies Vs Smt Parvathi B

Smt Subbalakshmamma @ Subbamma Vs Sri G M Narayanaswamy

Jayamma Vs Girigowda

Sri. J M Gopal Vs Ms. Lahari Chinnappa

Union of India Vs the State of Karnataka