Allowed

Sri Vkrsv Prasad Rao v. Smt Chinnamma

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2024WP/7510/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition quashing a trial court order rejecting a compromise petition. The High Court held that parties could abandon or compromise the suit against specific defendants, which would not bind the interests of a third party who had filed a counter-claim. Consequently, the trial court was directed to accept the compromise while leaving the counter-claim alive.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17.02.2024 is set aside. Trial Court directed to accept the compromise. Defendant No.4 entitled to pursue counter-claim.

Sri Vkrsv Prasad Rao Vs Smt Chinnamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7510 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. VKRSV PRASAD RAO S/O LATE PEDDA VENKATESHWARALU, D.NO.2/19/3, FOREST OFFICE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, KAKINADA EAST, GODAVARI DISTRICT. AP-533033. REP. BY GPA HOLDER SARATH CHANDRA

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

M/S. SRIPANCHAJANYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., (A COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956), REP. BY ITS PARTNER, SARATHCHANDRA, D NO.2/19/3, FOREST OFFICE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP-533033.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. CHINNAMMA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O LATE MALEYAPPA,

¶14

SRI. M. MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE MALEYAPPA,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶16

SRI. M. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE MALEYAPPA,

¶17

SRI. SHIVA KUMAR S., AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O M. SRINIVAS,

¶18

SMT. M. SHANTHA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O LATE MALEYAPPA, W/O PRAKASH,

¶19

SRI. VIJAYABHASKAR M., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE MALEYEPPA,

¶20

ALL ARE R/AT RANGASWAMY STREET, YEMALURU VILLAGE AND POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560037.

¶21

SRI. M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE MALEYAPPA, RANGASWAMY STREET, YEMALURU VILLAGE AND POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560037.

¶22

SRI. K.N. MOHAN REDDY S/O D. NARAYANA REDDY, R/AT KATHRIGUPPE VILLAGE, KUGUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562125

¶23

SRI. NANDA KUMAR, S/O NARASIMULU NAIDU, NO.401, RATHNAMAHAL SHREYAS, 7^TH C MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT, 7^TH BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560043.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶26

(BY SRI. SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.8; SRI. CHANDRAMOHAN K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.9; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 7)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE XXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN OS NO.8391/2017 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN OS NO.8391/2017 ON COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 8 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.8391/2017 on the file of XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) are before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 17.02.2024 by which, a petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected.

¶32

The suit in O.S.No.8391/2017 was filed for the following reliefs:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶35

" A. Partition of the suit schedule property into SEVEN (7) shares and for allotment of plaintiffs 6/7 (SIX SHARERS OUT OF SEVEN) sharers by into metes and bounds.

¶36

B. Directing that the plaintiffs together be put in exclusive possession of 6/7^th share in the suit property if necessary through process of court.

¶37

C. Canceling the registered sale deed stands in favour of the 3^rd defendant dated 15/10/2013 bearing No: INR-1-05366/2013-14 and stored in CD No:INRD78 which is registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Indiranagara, Bengaluru in so far it relates to plaintiffs' 6/7^th share is concerned as the same is obtained by fraud and not supported by valid sale consideration.

¶38

D. Issue a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 2 and 3 to execute the deed of cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 15/10/2013 bearing No:INR-1-05366/201314 in favour of the plaintiffs in so far as it related to their 6/7^th share of the suit property and if necessary through process of law.

¶39

Directing the defendants 2 and 3 or such of the directors and managing directors of the 3^rd defendant-company to execute the re-

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶41

conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs relating to their 6/7^th share in the suit schedule property.

¶42

E. Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3, their men, agents, power of attorney holders or anybody, claiming through them from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and grant such other and further relief/s including the costs of this suit in the interest of justice."

¶43

(i) The suit property was converted land bearing BBMP Khatha No.369 formed in Sy.No.20/1B measuring 35 guntas plus 1 gunta, situate at Kadubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

¶44

(ii) The defendant Nos.2 and 3 contested the suit and denied the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the suit reliefs. The defendant No.4 too contested the suit and sought for a counter claim which reads as follows:

¶45

" WHEREFORE , this defendant prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to decree the suit as follows:-

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶47

a) Declare that sale deed executed by plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 dated 15/10/2013 registered as document No.5366/2013-14 in book 1 in the office of Sub Registrar, Indiranagar, Bengaluru is not binding on 4^th defendant.

¶48

b) To direct the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 by way of decree of specific performance to come forward and execute registered sale deed with respect of written statement schedule property in favour of this defendant in terms of agreement dated 3/1/2005 on receipt of balance sale consideration. c) Direct the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to put this 4^th defendant in possession of written statement schedule property."

¶49

The property described in the written statement

¶50

was the property bearing No.20/1, Hissa No.20/1B measuring 36 guntas including 1 gunta situated at Kadubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

¶51

When the suit was listed for trial, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed a petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, whereby, the plaintiffs acceded to the sale deed in favour of the defendant

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶54

No.3, which was questioned in the suit, against receipt of consideration. This petition was opposed by the defendant No.4 on various grounds. He claimed that the plaintiffs had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the defendant No.4 on 03.01.2005 for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,52,11,200/and that he had paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as part of the agreed sale consideration. He also contended that he had sought for a counter claim for the relief of specific performance of the said agreement and for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The Trial Court after elaborately considering the scope and ambit of Order VIII Rule 6A of Civil Procedure Code held that "the plaintiffs had not submitted their reply to the counter claim and that he had raised a substantial question requiring an adjudication as against the plaintiffs in respect of the subject matter of the suit." It also held that "the cause of action for the counter claim of the defendant No.4, was prior to the rights purportedly created in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3." Therefore, it held that "it is not proper to accept the compromise petition entered into between the plaintiffs and the

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶57

defendants" and consequently, passed the impugned order rejecting it.

¶58

Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court in this writ petition.

¶59

Learned Senior Counsel for the defendant Nos.2 and 3 contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to abandon the suit, as they had already executed confirmation deeds confirming the passage of title in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3. He contends that in order to conclusively dispose off the proceedings, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 had submitted a petition to compromise the dispute. He also submits that no relief was sought for against the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the suit and thus, nothing prevented the Court from accepting the compromise. He also submits that the defendant No.4 had only filed a counter claim, but had not paid any Court fee for the relief sought. He also contends that even if the compromise is accepted, the counter claim could still be proceeded with by registering the counter claim as a counter suit after proper Court fee is paid. He contends that the claim of the defendant No.4 would be tested on settled principles of

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶61

law and this cannot dissuade the Trial Court from accepting the compromise. He further contended that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶62

Radhey Shyam and another vs Chhabi Nath and others

¶63

[AIR 2015 SC 3269].

¶64

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on the other hand, contended that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 had executed an agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.4 and had received part of the sale consideration. He contends that the defendant No.4 therefore sought for counter claim of specific performance of said agreement of sale and also for setting aside the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3. He contends that if the compromise is accepted, there is a possibility of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 depriving the claim of defendant No.4. He referred to Order VIII Rule 6E of Civil Procedure Code and contends that the plaintiffs have not filed reply to the counter claim and therefore, the defendant No.4 is entitled for a judgment. He also contends that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs.

¶65

National Insurance Co. Ltd and another - (2003) 3 SC

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶68

524 has held that "this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot correct an error apparent on the face of record or an error of law. He contends that this Court cannot act as an appellate Court or a tribunal and cannot review or reweigh any evidence upon which, the inferior Court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in a decision." Thus, he contends that the Trial Court has rejected the compromise petition, since it was not satisfied and therefore, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction to undo the impugned order.

¶69

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel for the defendant No.4. I have also perused the records as well as the impugned order.

¶70

The suit centers around the claim of the plaintiffs that the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is obtained by fraud and not supported by valid sale consideration. They do not dispute the fact of they executing confirmation deeds confirming the title of the defendant No.3 to the suit property. Under the circumstances,

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶73

the plaintiffs have given up their claim against defendant Nos.1 to 3 and thus they could have very well withdrawn the suit. The compromise petition filed before the trial Court merely evidences the fact of confirmation of title of defendant No.3. Therefore, no force on earth could stop the plaintiffs from withdrawing or abandoning or compromising the suit with defendants, particularly when no relief is sought against defendant Nos.4 and 5. They also could have deleted defendant Nos.4 and 5 from the array of parties and proceeded to compromise the dispute. In view of Order VIII Rule 6(d) of Civil Procedure Code, such compromise or abandonment of the suit claim would not come in the way of defendant No.4 pursuing his counter claim in respect of suit property and any compromise that may be entered into between plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 would certainly not bind him. Therefore, the Trial Court went on a tangent to hold that the claim of defendant No.4 was prior to the claim of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and that the suit and the counter claim had to be disposed off together. This definitely is a wrong understanding of the position of law, as a suit can at any stage of the proceedings be abandoned, withdrawn or settled by the parties.

¶74

12 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:50705 WP No. 7510 of 2024

¶76

In that view of the matter, the impugned order

¶77

passed by the Trial Court warrant interference.

¶78

Hence, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.02.2024 passed in O.S.No.8391/2017 is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to accept the compromise submitted by plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3. However, the compromise that may be accepted, shall not bind the interest of defendant No.4. The defendant No.4 shall be entitled to pursue his counter claim in accordance with law.

¶79

In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.

¶80

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶81

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Sri Vkrsv Prasad Rao v. Smt Chinnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vkrsv Prasad Rao v. Smt Chinnamma

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

Smt.Indira Vs Sri Ramakrishna

Smt Fakru Bi Vs Smt Saidambi

Sri. Krishnappa Vs Sri. S. Prabhu

Sri Narasimhaiah Vs Sri K H Nagaraj

T Srinivasa Vs M Subendra Rao

Smt. Shanthi Vs Sri. E Thyagaraj