Smt Susheelamma Vs Sri B K Dinesh

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1826 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, W/O R.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT.NO .198, 6^TH CROSS, 28^TH MAIN, 1^ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT (AGARA) BENGALURU - 560 102. (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.AMARANARAYANA SWAMY.S.V. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI.B.K.DINESH, S/O R.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT. NO.198 6^TH CROSS, 28^TH MAIN, 1^ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT (AGARA) BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶13

SMT.LALITHAMMA, W/O MUNIPPA REDDY, D/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT AVADADENAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶15

KASABA HOBLI, MARASUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶16

SRI.MUNIPAPA REDDY, S/O LATE. PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT AVADADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MARASUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶17

SRI.BABU, S/O MUNIPAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT AVADADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MARASUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V AND K.R. NAGARAJA ADVOCATE FOR R1. SRI.H.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY FOR C/R4 (CP.NO.19542/22 AND 19541/22 AND R2 AND R3(VK NOT FILED))

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, DATED 01/12/2022 IN OS.NO. 1847/2008 ALLOWING THE IA.NO.2 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The defendant No.1(a) in O.S.No.1847/2008 pending on the file of the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court'), is before this Court Challenging an order dated 01.12.2022 passed therein by which, an application filed by the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short) was allowed and the additional written statement filed by the defendant No.1 (a) was struck of.

¶27

A suit in O.S.No.1847/2008 was filed for declaration that the General Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as ‘GPA’ for short) obtained in the name of the defendant No.1 by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 is fraudulent and as a result of misrepresentation and consequently, to declare the gift deed dated 07.12.2007 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.4 as collusive and fraudulent and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶30

the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and to restrain them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and from alienating it.

¶31

The sum and substance of the case of the

¶32

plaintiff was that he was the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant No.1 was the husband of the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 is the first daughter and the defendant No.3 is her husband and defendant No.4 was their son. The plaintiff purchased the suit property in terms of a sale deed dated 26.09.2000. She claimed that she filed a suit in O.S.No.2748/2006 claiming a share in

¶33

the property of her parents which was on the advice of the defendant No.1. She claimed that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 had represented that the plaintiff can authorize the defendant No.1 to lookafter the suit and therefore, in good faith the plaintiff had signed various documents prepared by the defendant Nos.1 to 3. She claimed that the attitude of the defendant No.1 changed over time and after coming to know that the defendant No.1 had brought

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶36

about a fraudulent Power of Attorney, she lodged a complaint against the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. Based on

¶37

the said Power of Attorney, the defendant No.1 had executed a gift deed in favour of the defendant No.4 on 07.12.2007. She therefore contended that the GPA as well as the gift deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.4 is all fraudulent and same had to be set at naught.

¶38

The defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed a written statement inter alia admitting the execution of the Power of Attorney and the consequent gift deed executed in favour of the defendant No.4. They claimed that the plaintiff had validly executed the power of Attorney and authorized defendant No.1 to encumber the suit property and that the alienation made in favour of the defendant No.4 was valid.

¶39

During the course of the suit, defendant No.1

¶40

filed an application to file a separate written statement by withdrawing the written statement already filed by him

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶43

along with the defendant Nos.2 to 4. Before this application was considered, the defendant No.1 died and his legal representative was brought on record as defendant No.1(a). The defendant No.1(a) then filed a separate written statement denying the execution of the GPA as well as the gift deed executed in favour of defendant No.4.

¶44

The defendant Nos.2 to 4 were therefore advised to file an application to strike out the additional written statement filed by the defendant No.1(a) and consequently, they filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC to strike out the written statement filed by the defendant No.1(a).

¶45

This application was contested by the defendant No.1(a), who denied that the defendant No.1 had voluntarily filed a written statement. She also denied that the Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 was lawful and consequently, claimed that the gift deed executed by the defendant No.1 in

¶46

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶47

favour of the defendant No.4 was not lawful. Therefore, she claimed that she was entitled to plead the assertion made by the defendant No.1 in an application filed by him to file a separate written statement.

¶48

The Trial Court after considering the application as well as objection thereto, allowed the application in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the defendant No.1 had already filed a written statement contending that the GPA executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 was lawful and that the gift deed executed in favour of the defendant No.4 was also lawful. Therefore, it held that the defendant No.1 (a) cannot file a separate written statement contrary to what was already filed that the deceased defendant No.1.

¶49

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant No.1(a) is before this Court.

¶50

The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 (a) submitted that the defendant No.1 had filed an application seeking permission of the Court to file a separate written

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶52

statement. He submits that before this application could be considered, defendant No.1 died and therefore the legal representative of defendant No.1 was entitled to file a separate written statement re-iterating the contentions raised by the defendant No.1 in the application filed by him. He therefore contends that the pleadings of the defendant No.1 (a) was neither scandalous, vexatious and was not an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, he contends that there is no justification for the Trial Court to strike out the pleadings.

¶53

Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 contended that when defendant No.1 had filed a written statement admitting the execution of the Power of Attorney and the execution of the gift deed in favour of the defendant No.4, defendant No.1(a) cannot contend to the contrary and deny the entitlement of the defendant No.1 to execute the gift deed in favour of the defendant No.4. Therefore, he contends that the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 (a) was mutually

¶54

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶55

destructive of the written statement filed by the deceaseddefendant No.1. Therefore, he contends that the written statement filed by the defendant No.1(a) was rightly struck off by the trial Court.

¶56

I have considered the submission of the learned

¶57

counsel for the learned counsel for the defendant No.1(a) as well as learned counsel for the defendant No.4.

¶58

There is no dispute that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 had filed a common written statement contending that the Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff was lawful and that on the basis of the said Power of Attorney, defendant No.1 had executed a gift deed in favour of the defendant No.4. It may be that the defendant No.1 had filed an application seeking permission of the Court to file a fresh written statement by ignoring the earlier written statement filed. This application was not considered and later, the defendant No.1 died. Therefore, there is no adjudication of the application filed by the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1(a) who was bound by the assertions

¶59

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶60

made by the defendant No.1, cannot contend that the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 had to be ignored and the defendant No.1(a) should be granted permission to file a fresh written statement. However, defendant No1(a) after being impleaded filed a mutually destructive written statement denying the assertions made by the defendant No.1 in the earlier written statement. The defendant No.1(a) who stepped into the shoes of the defendant No.1, could not contend anything contrary to what the defendant No.1 had earlier contended. Therefore,

¶61

the contentions urged by the defendant No.1(a) in the written statement was vexatious and an attempt to abuse the process of the Court. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in entertaining the application filed by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 and strike off the pleadings filed by the defendant No.1(a). There is no error committed by the Trial Court in allowing the application warranting interference with the impugned order.

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:7169 WP No. 1826 of 2023

¶63