Dismissed¶85

Guarav Shangvi v. Smt. Kantha

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2025WP/18080/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of subsequent purchasers; Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC; necessary and proper parties; partition and separate possession suit; dispute of Release Deed dated 27.04.1992; sale deeds dated 25.05.2015; Article 227 Constitution of India; GM-CPC; WP No. 18080 of 2018; NC: 2025:KHC:8977; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Justice M.G.S. Kamal; order dated 15.11.2017 on I.A.No.7 upheld; writ petition dismissed; O.S.No.41/2015; O.S.No.62/2012; W.P.No.8807/2015; KGF; avoidance of multiplicity of litigation.

What did the court decide?

Impleadment of the petitioners was warranted because the plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession while disputing the very Release Deed dated 27.04.1992 on whose basis the petitioners had purchased the suit property ¶81

Guarav Shangvi Vs Smt. Kantha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:8977 WP No. 18080 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 18080 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GUARAV SHANGVI

¶9

S/O. B. CHAIN RAJ & BHAWARI BAI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, C/O. VIJAYRAJ, R/AT. 1^ST CROSS ROAD, ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F. - 563 122.

¶10

R. PUSHPALATHA W/O. R. SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT. NO. A/7, OOKET MODEL HOUSE, COROMANDEL POST, K.G.F. - 563125.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA V.N.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. KANTHA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS,

¶16

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 10,

¶17

R.K. RANGASWAMY, S/O KUPPUSWAMY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶18

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 10 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:8977 WP No. 18080 of 2018

¶21

R. ELONGOVAN S/O. R.K. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶22

RAVICHANDRAN S/O. R.K. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶23

TAMIZH SELVI D/O. R.K. RANGASWAMY, W/O. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶24

RAMESH BABU S/O. R.K. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶25

SURESH BABU S/O. R.K. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶26

THILAGAVATHI W/O. LATE. SATHYASEELAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶27

RAJESH KUMAR S/O. LATE. SATHYASEELAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶28

SENDIL NADHAN S/O. LATE. SATHYASEELAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶29

SUMA PARAMESHWARI D/O. LATE. SATHYASEELAN, W/O. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶30

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT NO.696, 20^TH LOCAL QUARTERS, MARIKUPPAM, K.G.F. - 563 119.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8977 WP No. 18080 of 2018

¶32

SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI W/O. LATE. PARASURAMAN, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT. NO.11-6, 827, RED HILLS, KAKDI KA PUL, HYDERABAD - 500 004.

¶33

SMT. LILLY PUSHPAM W/O. C. MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 13158, 2^ND MAIN, RAMAIAH ROAD, KOTHUR, VIJINAPURA, DOORAVANI NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶34

SMT. ELDA THAVAMANI W/O. S. ARUMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT. NO.51, RR LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, VIJINAPURA, DOORAVANI NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶35

SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI W/O. LATE. DURAIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 5 BALAGHAT, DRIVERS LINE, CORMANDAL POST, K.G.F. - 563 118.

¶36

DHANA BACKYAN W/O. LATE. S. SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶37

SMT. PRASANNAKUMARI DARATHY D/O. LATE. SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶38

RESPONDENT 15 AND 16 ARE

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:8977 WP No. 18080 of 2018

¶41

R/AT. NO.10, BALAGHAT LANE, CORMANDAL POST,

¶42

K.G.F. - 563 118.

¶43

SRI. KESAVAN S/O. LATE. S. SUNDAR RAJ, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶44

SMT. SELVI D/O. LATE. S. SUNDAR RAJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶45

RESPONDENT NO.17 AND 18 ARE R/AT NO. M007, BALAGHAT'S DRIVERS LANE, COROMANDAL POST, K.G.F. - 563 118.

¶46

SRI. MOHAMMED ASADULLA S/O. MOHAMMAD SAWOOD SAHEEB, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT. NO.1757, 3^RD CROSS, ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F. - 563120.

¶47

SRI. V.H. MADALLI S/O. LATE. H.A. MADALLI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT. NO.115, 2^ND CROSS, M.V. NAGAR, BEMI NAGAR, K.G.F. - 563122.

¶48

SRI. KEMPAIAH S/O. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, LECTURER IN HISTORY, FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, OORGAUM, K.G.F. - 563 122.

¶49

SRI. C. MADANAGOPAL S/O. CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8977 WP No. 18080 of 2018

¶51

R/AT. NO.11TH A CROSS, SWARNANAGAR, ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F. - 563 122.

¶52

SRI. C. VANAGAMUDI S/O. M.K. GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT. SAPTHAGIRI MATRIC SCHOOL, VENKATESH NAGAR, HOSUR - 635 109, TAMILNADU.

¶53

SRI. S. KANTHARAJ S/O. J. SWAMINATHAN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT. NO.13, 3^RD BLOCK, 5^TH LANE, 7^TH MAIN END, DASAPPA LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560016.

¶54

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GURUSWAMY K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R11 AND R13; R14 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED:15.12.2022 NOTICE TO R15 TO R24 DISPENSED WITH)

¶55

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KGF IN O.S.NO.41/2015 ON I.A.7 DATED 15.11.2017 AT ANNEX-H ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND ETC.

¶56

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

¶57

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:8977 WP No. 18080 of 2018

¶60

ORAL ORDER

¶61

Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2017 passed on I.A.No.7 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC filed by the plaintiffs in a suit in O.S.No.41/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, KGF for impleading them as defendant Nos.11 and 12 are before this Court.

¶62

The above suit in O.S.No.41/2015 has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein for partition and separate possession of certain properties claiming the same to be the joint family properties.

¶63

Plaintiffs/Respondents and defendant Nos.1 to 10 therein are the members of a joint family. It is alleged that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 10 in collusion had created a document called Release Deed dated 27.04.1992 and had filed a suit in O.S.No.62/2012 without impleading plaintiffs as a parties to the said suit. That the plaintiffs had sought to implead themselves in the said suit as parties, which was rejected. As against which they had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8807/2015, which was disposed of reserving liberty to

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:8977 WP No. 18080 of 2018

¶66

the plaintiffs to file a separate suit. Accordingly, plaintiff filed a present suit in O.S.No.41/2015.

¶67

That the Husband of proposed defendant No.12, namely one Sri. Shivraj is stated to be representing the plaintiffs in O.S.No.62/2012 and that said Sri. Shivraj had allegedly created two deeds of sale both dated 25.05.2015 in the name of his wife-the proposed defendant No.12 as well as in the name of proposed defendant No.11. That the said deeds of sale dated 25.05.2015 are not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiff filed the application seeking to implead proposed defendant Nos.11 and 12 as party defendants to the suit.

¶68

Said application is resisted on the premise that the plaintiffs had executed Release Deed on 27.04.1992, in respect of the property purchased by the proposed defendants. As such the plaintiffs had no locus-standi to file an application seeking to implead the defendants. It is also contended that the defendant No.12 purchased the property on 25.05.2015, while the application to implead has been filed on 16.01.2017 and there is an inordinate delay in filing said application. Hence sought for rejection of said application.

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:8977 WP No. 18080 of 2018

¶71

Based on the said averments, the Trail Court

¶72

framed the following point for its consideration;

¶73

''Whether the plaintiff had made out ground for allowing I.A.No.7 to implead proposed defendant Nos.11 and 12 as defendant Nos.11 and 12 in the suit?''

¶74

By the impugned order the Trial Court, allowed the

¶75

application, permitted the plaintiffs to implead the proposed defendant Nos.11 and 12 as defendants. Aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court.

¶76

Smt. Rakshitha V.N, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through video conferencing submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioners herein were neither necessary parties nor proper parties for the purpose of adjudication of the suit inasmuch as the plaintiffs have not challenged the deeds of sale that were executed in their favour in respect of suit schedule property. She further submits that inasmuch as the plaintiffs had already executed release deed on 27.04.1992 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4, the plaintiffs did not have any subsisting right in the suit schedule property. The petitioners having purchased the property under registered deeds of sale dated 21.05.2015 and

¶77

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:8977 WP No. 18080 of 2018

¶79

25.05.2015 respectively had become absolute owners of the property, impleading them into the suit filed by the plaintiffs would be unnecessary apart from causing hardship to them. Hence seeks for allowing of the writ petition.

¶80

Heard and perused the records.

¶81

There is no dispute of the fact that petitioners herein had purchased the property subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.41/2015, just a few days before filing of the suit. Plaintiffs have filed the above suit for partition and separate possession and have also disputed the said Release Deed dated 27.04.1992. Petitioners who have been impleaded as proposed defendant Nos.11 and 12 have purchased the very same property, apparently acting upon the said Release Deed. Since the plaintiffs have sought for relief for partition and separate possession disputing the very Release Deed based on which the petitioners have purchased the property, the Trial Court found it appropriate to implead the petitioners herein as party to the suit for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties and also to avoid any multiplicity of legal proceedings.

¶82