Smt. K Vanaja Vs Smt Anasuya

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1635/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶8

SMT. K. VANAJA W/O LATE SRI. KILASPATHI AGED 58 YEARS R/AT NO.11/20A, 26TH MAIN ANNAIAH REDDY LAYOUT 6TH PHASE, JP NAGARA BEHIND MANASA SCHOOL BANGALORE-560078.

¶9

PRESENTLY R/AT. C/O SUDHINDRA ACHAR NO.167, 7^TH MAIN ROAD 5^TH D CROSS, RUKMININAGARA NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560076.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. B. PALAKSHAIAH, ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. ANASUYA GROUND FLOOR NO.11/20 A, 26TH MAIN ANNAIAH REDDY LAYOUT 6TH PHASE, JP NAGARA BEHIND MANASA SCHOOL BANGALORE-560078.

¶14

THE MANAGER GRAMEENA BANK ARADESHANAHALLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002 REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER.

¶18

K. MOHAN S/O KALISPATHI @ KRISHNAMURTY NO.G1, SAI SUMUKH SIRI SPARSH APARTMENTS 4TH CROSS, ADITHYA NAGAR KOTHANUR, JP NAGAR 8TH PHASE BENGALURU-560078.

¶19

DINAKAR .K S/O KAILASPATHI @ KRISHNAMURTY R/A NO.11/20 A, 26TH MAIN ANNAIAH REDDY LAYOUT SARAKKI KERE, JP NAGARA 6TH PHASE BANGALORE-560078.

¶20

KRISHNAVENI D/O KAILASPATHI @ KRISHNAMURTY NO.G1, SHIVAGANGA HARMONY APARTMENTS 2ND MAIN, 2ND BLOCK VV NIAGARA, BENGALURU-560061

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. ARAVIND M. NEGLUR, ADV., FOR R3 SRI. KRISHNA SUNDAR R, ADV., FOR R4 TO R6 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OS 8240/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCCH-09, HEARING ON 21.01.2020. PASS/QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN AS ANNX-E DATED 06.01.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCCH-09, HEARING ON 21.01.2020 & ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶31

"i) Call for records in OS.No.8240/2013 on the file of the City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCCH-09, hearing on 21/01/2020.

¶32

ii) Pass/quash/set aside the order impugned herein as Annexure E dated 06/01/2020 on the file of the City Civil and Sessions Judge CCCH-09, hearing on 21/01/2020."

¶33

Sri.B.Palakshaiah, learned counsel appearing for

¶34

the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit against respondent No.1 for relief of declaration that the petitioner is the only legal heir of deceased Sri.Kailasapathi and further declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the properties referred in the plaint. It is submitted that respondent No.1 entered appearance in the said suit filed detailed written statement contending that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sri.Kailasapathi. The trial Court framed issues on 16.10.2018. Issue No.4 specifically casts burden on

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

respondent No.1 that she shall prove that she is legally wedded wife of deceased Sri.Kailasapathi and out of their wedlock she gave birth to two male and one female children as contended. To discharge the burden, respondent No.1 has to adduce evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has adduced the evidence in detail as a witness. Later, again the said witness was recalled for further cross-examination. When the matter was posted for the evidence of respondent No.1/defendant No.1, at that stage respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed an application for impleadment claiming that they are the children of deceased Sri.Kailasapathi born out of the wedlock between Sri.Kailasapathi and respondent No.1/defendant No.1. The trial Court without considering any of the aspects allowed the said application. It is also contended that defendant No.1 is effectively defending her right in the suit and she would definitely defend the interests of the proposed respondent Nos.4 to 6/defendant Nos.4 to 6 if they are the children of defendant No.1. It is

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

submitted that the trial Court without appreciating any of the aspects and without considering the fact that the application is filed at the belated stage, proceeded to allow the application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order.

¶42

Per contra, Smt.Geetha Raj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Aravind M. Neglur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri.Krishna Sundar R., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 support the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the petitioner has not denied that they are the children of late Sri.Kailasapathi and without arraying them as a party to the suit, the suit is filed seeking declaration that the petitioner is the sole legal heir of the deceased Sri.Kailasapathi. Hence, the proposed defendants are necessary and proper parties to the suit. It is submitted that the suit schedule properties is in possession of respondent No.1 and she is receiving the rent. By suppressing certain facts, the petitioner has

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

already withdrawn Rs.5,00,000/- fixed deposit amount of deceased Sri.Kailasapathi and to defend the suit effectively the proposed defendants who are the children of late Sri.Kailasapathi may not be necessary parties but they are the proper parties. In support of her contention she placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baluram v. P.Chellathangam and Others¹ .

¶47

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission advanced on both sides.

¶48

The petitioner filed OS.No.8240/2013 seeking relief of declaration that the petitioner is the only legal heir of deceased Sri.Kailasapathi and she is the owner of the suit schedule properties. The said suit is filed against respondent No.1-Smt.Anasuya. Respondent No.1 has

¶49

1 AIR 2015 SC 1264

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

entered appearance and filed written statement. A specific contention is raised in the written statement that respondent No.1 is a legally wedded wife of late Sri.Kailasapathi and out of their wedlock she has given birth to 3 children. The said assertion can be found at paragraph No.17 of the written statement. Records also indicate that respondent No.1 along with the proposed defendants filed petition in P & SC No.24/2014 seeking for issuance of succession certificate and the said proceedings are pending. During the pendency of the said suit and after commencement of the trial, respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking for impleadment. The said application is accompanied by an affidavit of respondent No.4 which indicates that respondent No.1 is the mother and the deceased Sri.Kailasapathi is the father of the applicants. It is contended in the affidavit with regard to the withdrawal of money by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the trial Court

¶54

8 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

by taking note of the fact that the P & SC filed by defendant No.1 and her children is pending and they claim that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.Kailasapathi, has allowed the application and the said issue is required to be gone into in the pending suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision reiterating the law laid down by it in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and

¶58

Others² at paragraph No.15 has held as under:

¶59

"15. A “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a

¶60

2 (2010) 7 SCC 417

¶61

9 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance."

¶65

6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decision, I am of

¶66

the considered view that the proposed defendants i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 6 may not be necessary parties but they are the proper parties to the suit pending before the Court as the petitioner is specifically making assertion with regard to right over the immovable properties, that she is the sole owner of the property and sole legal heir of the deceased Sri.Kailasapathi. The subject matter of the suit is with regard to the immovable properties and the respondent Nos.4 to 6 also claim rights over the said properties claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.Kailasapathi. To protect their interests over the properties, the trial Court has rightly allowed the respondent Nos.4 to 6 to be impleaded in the suit for complete adjudication. I do not find any error in the

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference in the present petition.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶72

the suit is of the year 2013, hence, seeks to issue direction for disposal of the suit in a time bound manner. I am of the considered view that such direction cannot be issued to the trial Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner can make a request to the trial Court for early disposal and the trial Court would definitely take note of the same and consider the request of the petitioner for early disposal of the suit. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) The writ petition is devoid of merit

¶75

and the same is rejected.

¶76

ii) It is made clear that the aforesaid

¶77

observations made by this Court are restricted

¶78

11 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:24655 W.P. No.1635/2020

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

only to adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as declaration of the rights of the parties in the suit.

¶82

iii) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that they would appear before the trial Court on 23.07.2025. The said submission is placed on record.

¶83

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶84

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Smt. K Vanaja v. Smt Anasuya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K Vanaja v. Smt Anasuya

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

Sri. B. v. Ramachandra Reddy Vs Sri. T. Krishna Reddy

Sri Balakrishna K P Vs Sri K P Puttaraju

Kum Nanda Gouthami Vs Sri G Thimmappa

Sri M R Duggappa Vs Smt Umadevi

Sri P S Krishnakumar Vs Smt P S Manjula

M R Pro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kh Aircon Solutions Pvt. Ltd.