Allowed

Sri Venugopal v. Sri.C.Nanjundappa

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024WP/47219/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff challenged the lower court's refusal to implead them. The High Court set aside the impugned order, acknowledged the existence of gift deeds, and directed the lower court to pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order in Misc.No.103/2010 set aside; Court below directed to pass appropriate orders within two weeks considering the gift deeds.

Sri Venugopal Vs Sri.C.Nanjundappa — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26519 WP No. 47219 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 47219 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VENUGOPAL,

¶9

S/O. SRI.CHANNAPPA AND GRAND SON OF LATE CHIKKANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, NO.12/31, YAMUNA BAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶10

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. HARISH M.C., S/O. SRI. CHANNAPPA AND GRAND SON OF LATE CHIKKANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, NO.12/31, YAMUNA BAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001. BOTH ARE LR’S OF LATE CHIKKANANJAIAH

¶12

(BY SRI. JAYARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

SRI. C.NANJUNDAPPA, S/O. CHIKKANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT. NO.12/3 (MAIN HOUSE), YAMUNABAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

SRI. C. CHANNAIAH,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:26519 WP No. 47219 of 2016

¶19

S/O. CHIKKANANJAIAH, R/AT NO.12/31 (OUT HOUSE), YAMUNABAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001. SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS.

¶20

2(A) GOWRAMMA, W/O. LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, M.N.NANJAPPA COMPLEX, GEDDALAHALLI, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶21

2(B) GAYATHRI M.C., D/O. LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, M.N.NANJAPPA COMPLEX, GEDDALAHALLI, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶22

CHANGED ADDRESS: GAYATHRI M.C., D/O. LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.2, LAKSHMI NARASIMHA NILAYA, II FLOOR, I CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, LAGGERE, LAVAKUSHANAGARA, NEAR SHARADA VIDYA MANDIR, BANGALORE – 560 058.

¶23

SRI. HARISH M.C., S/O. SRI. CHANNAPPA AND GRAND SON OF LATE CHIKKANANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, NO.12/31, YAMUNA BAI ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR,

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26519 WP No. 47219 of 2016

¶25

BENGALURU – 560 001. BOTH ARE LRS OF LATE CHIKKANANJAIAH

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. C.V. ANNAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3 IS SERVED; R2(A) AND R2(B)- HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR IN MISC.NO.103/2010 AND ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Aggrieved by the order passed in Misc.No.103/2010,

¶32

dated 19.03.2016 by the II Additional District Judge, Tumkur, the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff are before this Court.

¶33

The Court below by way of impugned order had set

¶34

aside the abatement, but as far as impleading the LRs of the deceased plaintiff are concerned, the Court below has given a finding that the proposed legal representatives are not the natural legal heirs to the deceased plaintiff, but they are claiming under the gift deed as grandchildren to him. Their father is alive and they cannot claim as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. It is also observed

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26519 WP No. 47219 of 2016

¶36

that prima facie they have not produced any document that the gift deed is executed in their favour. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, they are before this Court.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grandfather of the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration and injunction and the same came to be dismissed. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, he died and it is also their case that a gift deed was executed in respect of the suit schedule properties by their grandfather in their favour by two separate registered documents dated 29.04.2008. The grandfather died on 18.05.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that in fact the gift deed is available and the Court below had not looked into the same. The Court below had not considered the same and without considering it, dismissed the application and not permitted the petitioners to be impleaded as the legal representatives and the same is bad.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the provisions under which the application is filed is not the correct

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26519 WP No. 47219 of 2016

¶40

provision of law and the Court below is right in dismissing the application, even on the ground that the gift deed was not placed and as the father is alive, they cannot be termed as legal representative and no grounds are made out seeking interference with the impugned order.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material placed on record. The undisputed facts are that these petitioners are the grandchildren of the deceased plaintiff. He died during the pendency of the appeal. According to these petitioners the grandfather has executed two gift deeds dated 29.04.2008. The only ground on which though abatement is set aside but they were not permitted to come on record as legal representatives is that the said document is not filed. This Court perused the two gift deeds dated 29.04.2008. Hence, without going into any of the further technicalities, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following,

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The order in Misc.No.103/2010, dated 19.03.2016 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Tumkur is set aside.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:26519 WP No. 47219 of 2016

¶46

ii. The Court below looking at the gift deeds that are placed shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶47

iii. As the R.A., is a old one, the appellate Court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months.

¶48

iv. All pending IA’s in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶49

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

¶50

SD/JUDGE

Sri Venugopal v. Sri.C.Nanjundappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venugopal v. Sri.C.Nanjundappa

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 Nanjappa Vs Smt Eramma

Smt. a Jyothi Vs J Prabhakar Rao

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited Vs Col.C.S.Madappa

Prasanna v Ghotage Vs Bharat Earth Movers Limited

Sri Thimmappa @ a K Thimmappa Vs Sri Basappa

Sri Manjunath Vs Smt. Parvathamma @ Parvathi