Sri. M. G. Srinivas Vs Smt. Yellamma

SRI. M. G. SRINIVAS, S/O GONAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT MADIVALA VILLAGE, MARSUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN - 562 107.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHANKAR.S.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M.SRINIVASAIAH, ADVOCATE (NOC))

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. YELLAMMA (DIED ON 02.08.2015 LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS R-2 AND R-3.)

¶14

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka

¶15

SMT RAJAMMA, W/O LATE RAMASWAMY, D/O LATE GOPALAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI AND VIA ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 107.

¶16

M VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE GOPALAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:52152 WP No. 15669 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ATTIBELE HOBLI AND VIA ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 107.

¶21

SMT V KANAKA, W/O M VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI AND VIA ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 107.

¶22

KUMARI V MANASWAVANNY,

¶23

D/O M VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI AND VIA ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 107.

¶24

MASTER V CHUDESHVANNY,

¶25

S/O M VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI AND VIA ANEKAL TALUK,

¶26

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 107.

¶27

S NARASARAJU, S/O LATE S N SESHAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BYLRS,

¶28

7(A) SMT S KANTHA, W/O LATE NARAPPA REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE R/AT NO 40, 30TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE, J P NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52152 WP No. 15669 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

7(B) SRI S N V L NARASIMHARAJU, S/O LATE NARASARAJU, S/O LATE NARASARAJU, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO 40, 30TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶32

7(C) SMT S TRIVENI, D/O LATE NARASARAJU, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO 40 30TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶33

7(D) SMT S SHAKUNTHALA, D/O LATE NARASARAJU, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO 40 30TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR.S, ADVOCATE SRI.CICWK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R7(A) TO (D); R-2 TO R-6 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 27.02.2024 R-2 AND R-3 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R-1)

¶36

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENITRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.135/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANEKAL; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.4.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT, IN O.S.NO.135/2012, REJECTING THE IA-7 UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 4 R/W SECTION 151 CPC, UNDER ANENXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:52152 WP No. 15669 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed

¶44

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 03.04.2019 passed on I.A.Nos.7 to 9 in O.S.No.135/2012 by the Court of Senior

¶45

Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, Bangalore Rural District.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶47

Suit in O.S.No.135/2012 is filed by the petitioner

¶48

herein before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Anekal, Bangalore Rural District, seeking the relief of specific performance. In the said suit, contesting defendants have entered appearance and filed their written statement opposing the suit claim. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.7-S.Narasaraju had died on 16.05.2016. I.A.No.7 to 9 were filed on behalf of the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of deceased

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52152 WP No. 15669 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

defendant No.7 on record. The proposed legal representatives had filed objections to the said applications. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected I.A.Nos.7 to 9 and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court.

¶52

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that plaintiff had earlier filed an application in O.S.No.135/2012 after defendant No.7 had died to bring his son Ramesh Raju as the legal representative of deceased defendant No.7. The said application was filed on 01.09.2016 and the Trial Court had allowed the said application. In the meanwhile, challenging the rejection of I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 by the Trial Court, the plaintiff had filed MFA No.7043/2012 and in the said appeal after the death of defendant No.7/respondent No.7 an application was filed to bring his wife and three children on record. It appears that the said application was allowed and the wife and children of S.Narasaraju were

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52152 WP No. 15669 of 2019

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

permitted to be brought on record as respondent Nos.7(a) to 7(d) in MFA No.7043/2012.

¶56

MFA No.7043/2012 was disposed of by this Court on 07.01.2019. After the disposal of MFA No.7043/2012, it appears that I.A.Nos.7 to 9 were filed to bring the other legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 on record, who were already permitted to be brought on record in MFA No.7043/2012 along with Ramesh Raju, son of deceased defendant No.7, who is also said to be known as SNVL Narasimha Raju.

¶57

The Trial Court however has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has rejected I.A.Nos.7 to 9 on the ground that the applications were filed belatedly. The Trial Court had failed to appreciate that one of the legal representatives of defendant No.7 was already brought on record and therefore, the suit had not abated as against defendant No.7. In addition to the same in MFA No.7043/2012 this Court has permitted to bring the wife

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52152 WP No. 15669 of 2019

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

and 3 children of deceased defendant No.7 as his legal representatives. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting I.A.Nos.7 to 9. Under the circumstances, the said order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The writ Petition is allowed.

¶63

(ii) The impugned order dated 03.04.2019

¶64

passed on I.A.Nos.7 to 9 in O.S.No.135/2012 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, Bangalore Rural District is set aside and consequently the prayer made in the said applications is granted.

¶65

(iii) It is needless to state that in view of

¶66

the time frame given by this Court in MFA No.7043/2012 for disposal of the suit, the Trial Court shall make endeavors to dispose of the suit at the earliest.

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:52152 WP No. 15669 of 2019

¶68