Smt. v v Ramani Vs Smt. V.V. Hemalatha

PATHAK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., REGD. OFFICE AT NO.2997 2ND FLOOR, RUKMA COMPLEX KALIDASA ROAD, V.V. MOHALLA MYSURU - 570002 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. JAYARAM.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK A, ADV., FOR SRI. SRIDHAR CHAKKE, ADV., FOR R2 SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADV., FOR R3 R1, R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE COMMON ORDER DATED 14.02.2020 PASSED ON IA.NO.15 TO 20 IN O.S.NO.183/2013 ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT MYSURU AS PER ANNEXURE-T & ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶28

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the common order dated 14.02.2020 passed on IA.No.15 to 20 in OS.No.183/2013 on the file of 2^nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mysuru as per Annexure-T."

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28344 W.P. No.12403/2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Smt.Aishwarya Hegde, learned counsel

¶32

appearing on behalf of Sri.Gururaj R., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession with regard to the suit schedule property. Later, during the pendency of the suit the petitioners came to know about the alienation of the joint family properties. Hence, filed applications in IA.Nos.15 to 20 seeking for impleadment of the purchasers of the joint family properties, amendment of the plaint seeking to incorporate the averments with regard to the sale transactions and additional prayer that the sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs and also to direct the defendants to deposit the entire sale consideration. It is further submitted that the trial Court rejected all the applications solely on the ground that specific averment is absent in the applications for impleadment with regard to the date of sale transactions. It is submitted that if the proposed defendants are permitted to be brought on record, it would avoid

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:28344 W.P. No.12403/2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

multiplicity of the litigation, it would also help the defendants in the suit as the suit being the suit for partition and separation possession and no prejudice would cause to the other side. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition.

¶37

Per contra, Sri.Abhishek A., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Sridhara Chakke, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 jointly support the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court by well reasoned order rejected all the applications filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs by recording the clear finding that the applications are bereft of details and proper particulars. It is submitted that the suit being the suit for partition, the subsequent purchasers are not necessary parties to the suit. In support of their contentions, they place reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sri.Narayanaswamy v.

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:28344 W.P. No.12403/2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Sri.Ramanjinappa and Others¹ and seek to dismiss the

¶42

petition.

¶43

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶44

counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

¶45

The petitioner filed suit in OS.No.183/2013 in

¶46

the Court of the Civil Judge, Mysuru for a relief of partition and separate possession. The records indicate that when the matter was posted for arguments the petitioners filed applications in IA.Nos.15, 17 and 18 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for impleadment of the purchasers claiming that they are the purchasers of the joint family properties and IA.No.16 under Order VI Rule 4 r/w Section 151 of CPC to direct the defendants to furnish necessary particulars relating to the

¶47

1WP.No.55266/2016 disposed on 18.07.2022

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28344 W.P. No.12403/2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

sale transactions with respect to the suit schedule property and IA.No.19 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC for amendment of the plaint and based on such impleadment seeking additional prayer that the sale deeds executed by the family members in favour of the proposed defendants are not binding and IA.No.20 under Section 151 of CPC to direct the defendants to deposit the entire sale consideration.

¶51

The trial Court under the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 rejected all the applications. The trial Court at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 has rightly observed that the transactions alleged to have taken place between the defendants and the proposed defendants as averred in the applications, does not contain any details with regard to the particulars of the sale deed. Further, the applications are bereft of details with regard to the assertion that a particular property is sold to a particular person. In the absence of any such particulars in the applications, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:28344 W.P. No.12403/2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties. Similarly, the application for amendment of plaint filed is rejected as the trial Court has recorded the finding that the suit is for the partition and separate possession and it is required to adjudicate the dispute with regard to the share of the parties in the suit and not more than that. This Court, in the case of Sri.Narayanaswamy referred supra at paragraph No.2 held as under:

¶56

"The petitioner/plaintiff has instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.491/2008. Pending suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.1 and 2 have sold item No.5 in favour of proposed defendant No.10. In a partition suit, a pendente lite purchaser is not at all a necessary party. The Court is required to examine the nature of suit schedule property and if found to be joint family ancestral property has to quantify the shares. Therefore, while drawing the preliminary decree, neither the purchaser before filing of the suit nor the pendente lite purchaser are necessary party. Their presence is absolutely not necessary to adjudicate the controversy between the family members. Even otherwise, the right of a purchaser in a pending partition suit is subject to quantification of share. A pendente lite purchaser cannot contest the suit and his sale deed is subject to the determination of the share by the Trial Court.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28344 W.P. No.12403/2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Therefore, I am of the view that a pendente lite purchaser is not at all a necessary party. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in rejecting the application. No error is made out."

¶60

Keeping in mind the observation of this Court in

¶61

the aforesaid decision and taking note of the reasoning of the trial Court under the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting all the applications filed by the petitioners which does not call for any interference in this petition. The impugned order is neither perverse nor contrary to the settled principles of law calling for interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶62

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶63

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Smt. v. v Ramani v Smt. V.V. Hemalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v. v Ramani v Smt. V.V. Hemalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. v Lakshmidevi Vs Sri. Gangadharaiah

Chandrappa Vs C Vasudeva

Smt. Tara Devi Vs Smt. Chaya. v

Smt. G. Jecintha Vs Smt. Thressa

The Karnataka State Board of Auqaf Vs M/S Charisma Builders Ltd.

Gurpreet Walia Vs Shakti Lamba