Smt. Anjinamma Vs Sri. a Doddaiah

8(a) SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE DODDA NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.280 BHAKTHAVATSALA STREET KALKERE VILLAGE HORAMAVU POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 048.

¶33

SRI. AKKAPPA S/O DODDAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 043.

¶34

SRI. PUTTAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:28213 W.P. No.7937/2020

HC-KAR

BENGALURU-560 043.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T. SRINIVASAN, ADV., FOR R8(a) & R10 R1 TO 5, 6 (a to d) 7 AND 9 ARE SD AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶41

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.08.2019 PASSED IN MISC. NO.50/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-G AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND VOID-AB-INITIO AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ALLOW THE MISC. NO.50/2019 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN & ETC.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2019 passed in Misc.No.50/2019 by the Principal City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’).

¶46

Sri.G.B.Manjunatha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed miscellaneous proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking transfer of

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:28213 W.P. No.7937/2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

four cases to one Court in order to avoid conflicting opinions. It is submitted that Misc.No.508/2011 has been filed to set aside the compromise decree passed in OS.No.5001/2000, which is pending before CCH-13, It is further submitted that OS.No.8242/2010 is pending before CCH-44, and OS.No.7424/2010 and OS.No.27101/2010 are pending before CCH-2 and the subject matter in all the proceedings is one and the same and between the same parties. Hence, they are required to be tried in one Court to avoid conflicting opinions and it would also ease the parties to adduce evidence and contesting the proceedings. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶51

Per contra, Sri.T.Srinivasan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8(a) and 10 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court after considering the contentions advanced and the material on record has rightly rejected the petition. It is submitted that the subject matter in OS.No.5001/2000, which is challenged in Misc.No.508/2011 is pertaining to Sy.No.42 and

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:28213 W.P. No.7937/2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

OS.No.8242/2010 is also pertaining to same survey number. However, the suit in OS.No.8242/2010 was decreed on 11.11.2020 and the scope of enquiry in Misc.No.508/2011 is different from the subject matter involved in OS.No.8242/2010. It is further submitted that the other two suits are pertaining to Sy.No.297 of the same village and in OS.No.7424/2010, respondent No.8(a) and 10 herein are not parties in the said proceedings. Therefore, the issues involved in these proceedings are distinct and required to be tried separately. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶56

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶57

counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶58

The petitioner herein has filed Misc.No.50/2019

¶59

before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:28213 W.P. No.7937/2020

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

the following pending cases to one Court i.e., Misc.No.508/2011 arising out of OS.No.5001/2000, OS.No.8242/2010, OS.No.7424/2010 and OS.No.27101/2010. At the outset, it is to be noticed that suit in OS.No.8242/2010 has already been disposed of on 11.11.2020. It is to be noticed that Misc.No.508/2011 has been filed seeking to set aside the compromise decree dated 12.08.2010 passed in OS.No.5001/2000 and subject matter of the said proceeding is Sy.No.42 measuring 29 guntas situated at Kalkere Village. The proceedings in Misc.No.508/2011 are distinct in nature, as the petitioner seeks to set aside the compromise decree on various grounds, therefore, enquiry and the scope of the said proceedings is altogether different. Hence, the question of clubbing the Misc.No.508/2011 with other pending suits would not rise.

¶64

OS.No.27101/2010 are concerned, the trial Court under

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:28213 W.P. No.7937/2020

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

the impugned order has recorded a clear finding that both the suits are pending before the CCH-2 and are being tried independently, with evidence being recorded. The trial Court, while recording the finding, has clearly observed that in OS.No.7424/2010, the subject matter is Sy.No.297 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas, wherein the plaintiffs are seeking declaration of title and challenging the gift deed dated 28.06.1956 and sale deeds dated 28.08.1995 and 21.05.2004 are not binding on the plaintiffs.

¶69

It is further to be noticed that

¶70

OS.No.27101/2010, is also pending before CCH-2, wherein the plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration and possession in respect of the properties bearing Sy.Nos.297/1, 297/2, 297/3 and 297/4 and also challenging the partition deed dated 18.08.1988 and four sale deeds. It is also to be noticed that, when both the said suits referred supra are pending before the same court and the reliefs sought therein are distinct, in my considered view, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application seeking

¶71