Disposed

Sri. Hanumanthe Gowda v. Smt. Mani Bai

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/44771/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant No.2 in a title suit challenged rejection of his applications to recall DW.1 and produce revenue documents at the argument stage. The High Court allowed the applications subject to costs and conditions permitting only marking of documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; applications allowed subject to Rs.50,000 costs, marking of documents only, no further oral evidence, plaintiffs may cross-examine; suit to be disposed within three months.

Sri. Hanumanthe Gowda Vs Smt. Mani Bai — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45421 WP No. 44771 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 44771 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SRI. HANUMANTHE GOWDA S/O SHRI MUNIYAPPA (LATE) AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.140, 1^ST CROSS, NAGASHETTY HALLI, BENGALURU-560094 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SHRI M. ANANDA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1^ST CROSS, NAGASHETTY HALLI, BENALURU-560094. (BY SRI. N. SHANTKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT. MANI BAI W/O SHRI NANDALAL RAMDAS (LATE) AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.68/1, CHARAN NIVAS, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

SMT. SUNITHA W/O SHRI SAIJU JHON, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.68/6,

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45421 WP No. 44771 of 2017

¶14

DODDAIAH LAYOUT JOGI PALYA, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560008.

¶15

SHRI NITTESH KUMAR SHROFF S/O SHRI NANDALAL RAMDAS (LATE) AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.68/1 CHARAN NIVAS, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020.

¶16

SHRI S. MUNEGOWDA S/O SHRI SONNAPPA (LATE) AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20, 1^ST CROSS, HANUMANTHAIAH LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE-560094.

¶17

DR. T. SHOBHA W/O THIMME GOWDA AGE: 50 YEARS R/AT NO.229, 8^TH CROSS, 1^ST 'N' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SHREEDEEP N, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. H. JAYAKAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2017 IN O.S.NO.1554/2009 PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-38) ON I.A.NOS.NIL VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

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

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45421 WP No. 44771 of 2017

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The defendant No.2 in O.S.No.1554/2009 pending trial before the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH - 38) (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 07.09.2017 by which, applications filed by him under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC'), under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC, were rejected.

¶26

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioner herein was the defendant No.2, while the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 were the defendant Nos.1 and 3 before the Trial Court.

¶27

(i) A suit in O.S.No.1554/2009 was filed for

¶28

declaration of title of the plaintiffs and for consequential reliefs to declare the general power of attorney executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant No.1 and the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:45421 WP No. 44771 of 2017

¶31

and 3 as null and void and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession in the suit schedule property.

¶32

(ii) The suit was contested by the defendant No.2.

¶33

(iii) When the trial in the suit was concluded and after

¶34

the arguments in the suit was heard by the Trial Court, three applications were filed by the defendant No.2 under Section 151 of CPC to recall the stage of the suit, under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to recall DW.1 for further examination and under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 of CPC to permit him to produce documents.

¶35

These applications were contested by the plaintiffs

¶36

on the ground that the applications were filed at a belated stage and that the defendant No.2 who was in possession of these documents from the year 2014 itself, did not justify as to why those documents were not filed at the earliest point in time.

¶37

The Trial Court after considering the contentions

¶38

urged, held that the case was posted for arguments and after arguments were heard in part, the defendant No.2 filed the

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45421 WP No. 44771 of 2017

¶40

applications. It held that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant No.2 was subsequent to filing of the suit and nothing prevented him from producing the documents at the stage of recording his evidence. It also held that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant No.2 were revenue documents and not documents of title. It held that the evidence adduced by the defendant No.2 is sufficient enough to determine his claim. Consequently, it rejected all the applications in terms of the impugned order.

¶41

Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant No.2 is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶42

The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 contended that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant No.2 were essential to establish that he was in possession of the suit property. He contends that though these documents were available with the defendant No.2, the same could not be produced. However, he contends that details of the katha of the suit property entered in the name of defendant No.2 were mentioned in the written statement filed by him. He also contends that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 had raised

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45421 WP No. 44771 of 2017

¶44

some disputes before the Corporation authorities and that after conducting an enquiry, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike had issued katha in respect of the property after the evidence in the suit had commenced. He therefore, contends that the defendant No.2 could not produce these documents when the evidence was adduced.

¶45

The learned counsel for the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 on

¶46

the other hand contended that these documents are not documents of title but are revenue documents and do not in any way help the defendant No.2 in establishing his case. He further contends that there is no reason mentioned as to why these documents were not produced at the earliest point in time. Besides this, he contends that the defendant No.2 has not established as to how these documents are material for the purpose of considering the case on merits.

¶47

The learned counsel for the defendant No.3 also

¶48

adopted the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2.

¶49

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 as well as the learned counsel

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:45421 WP No. 44771 of 2017

¶52

for the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the defendant No.3.

¶53

The reliefs sought for in the suit was for declaration of title of the plaintiffs and for consequential reliefs to declare the general power of attorney executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant No.1 and the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 as null and void and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession in the suit schedule property. The defendant No.2 filed his written statement on 20.04.2009 claiming that the katha of the suit property was in his name. The evidence of the defendant No.2 was recorded on 20.12.2013. The documents in question were subsequent to the date of recording of the evidence of defendant No.2. Ideally, the defendant No.2 must have produced these documents at the earliest point in time. There is no explanation given for the delay in producing these documents at the belated stage, that too when the suit was set down for arguments. No doubt the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was justified in view of the conduct of the defendant No.2. However, since this writ petition is pending

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:45421 WP No. 44771 of 2017

¶56

before this Court from the year 2017 and an interim order is granted by this Court staying further proceedings in the suit, it is appropriate to allow the applications filed by the defendant No.2 subject to the condition that the defendant No.2 goes on with the proceedings in the suit without further delay.

¶57

Hence, the following

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) This writ petition is disposed off setting aside the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH - 38) in O.S.No.1554/2009.

¶60

(ii) Applications filed by the defendant No.2 under Section 151 of CPC, under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC in O.S.No.1554/2009 are allowed.

¶61

(iii) This is however, subject to the condition that the defendant No.2 shall pay cost of

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:45421 WP No. 44771 of 2017

¶63

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable to the plaintiffs in equal portion on the next date of hearing.

¶64

(iv) This is also subject to the condition that the defendant No.2 shall only mark the documents and shall not lead any further oral evidence.

¶65

(v) It is however, open for the plaintiffs to crossexamine the defendant No.2.

¶66

(vi) Since the suit filed in the year 2009, the Trial Court is requested to dispose off the suit as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of conclusion of the evidence of the parties.

¶67

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶68

PMR

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Sri. Hanumanthe Gowda v. Smt. Mani Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Hanumanthe Gowda v. Smt. Mani Bai

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

Sri a Krishnappa @ Krishna Reddy Vs Smt Narayanamma

Munirama Bhovi Vs Sri.Nagaraju

Sri. Jayanna Vs Smt Sharadamma S

Sri Ullas Kottary Vs Suthan

Sri. Reddappa Vs Smt. Parvathamma

Sri Papanna Vs Sri K Tyagaraju