Sri Prashanth Ramu vs Sri D S Ganesh Reddy
2021 Latest Caselaw 5193 Kant

                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     WRIT PETITION NO.47009 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1.    SRI. PRASHANTH RAMU
      S/O LATE A. RAMU,
      AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
      NO.88,5 BUFFALLO GROVE ROAD
      SITE NO:105, BUFFALO GROVE I.L
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 60089
      [REPRESENTED BY HIS PA HOLDER
      PRASANNA R,
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
      RAMAMANDIRA STREET,
      PALAHALLI VILLAGE,
      SRIRANGAPATNA,
      MANDYA DISTRICT]

2.    SMT. G. MANGAMMA
      W/O VENKATA REDDY,
      AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
      10-97/1, SBI COLONY,
      KOTHAPET POST, SAROOR NAGAR,
      HYDERABAD-500035
      ANDHRA PRADESH
      [REPRESENTED BY HER PA HOLDER
      PRASANNA R,
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
      RAMAMANDIRA STREET,
      PALAHALLI VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA
      MANDYA DISTRICT
                                   ...PETITIONERS
                            2


(BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.
PURUSHOTHAM, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. D.S. GANESH REDDY
       @ D S GANESH @ D S SESHA REDDY,
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
       R/O NO.37, II BLOCK,
       THYAGARAJ NAGAR,
       BANGALORE-560 028

2.     THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
       SANKEY ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560 020
       (REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER)

3.     SRI. K.B. LAKSHMAN
       S/O LATE N. BEERANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
       KUMAR NURSERY,
       KONANAKUNTE,
       BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560078.
                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SMT. M.R.VANAJA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI. H.R.ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3 (THROUGH VC))

      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 17.09.2014 PASSED BY THE XL ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-41) AT BENGALURU, IN I.A
NO.1/12 FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN
O.S.NO.1804/2007, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOWING
I.A.NO.1/12 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3


                            ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the applicants in I.A.

No.1/2012 in O.S. No.1804/2007 pending trial before the

learned XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court')

challenging an Order dated 17.09.2014 by which an

application in I.A. No.I/2012 filed under Order I Rule 10(2)

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC')

was rejected.

2. The suit in O.S. No.1804/2007 was filed for the

following reliefs:

"(a) Declaring that the work order bearing No.BDA/TP/GH/23/2000/2410/04-05 dated 20.11.2004 issued by the first defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff;

(b) Directing the first defendant to cancel the layout plan approved by it vide its Resolution No.279/2004 dated 4.9.2004 and further cancel the work order issued;

(c) Consequently for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2, his men, his agents, his contractors, his workers, his servants or any person or persons acting under or through him from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land or in any way meddling with the same;

(d) Costs of the suit;

(e) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

3. The basis for the suit is that the plaintiff was

the owner of Sy.No.39/2 measuring 04 Acres 11 guntas

including 01 gunta of kharab situated at Raghavana Palya,

Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was

converted for non-agricultural purposes. It is claimed that

a person named Sri Kumaraswamy had allegedly

concocted a power of attorney in respect of the land owned

by the plaintiff and filed a suit in O.S.No.1155/2005. The

plaintiff on coming to know of the same filed a Criminal

Case No.334/2005 before the Magistrate Court. It is

claimed that the defendant No.2 had created a general

power of attorney by forging the signature of the plaintiff.

He therefore lodged a criminal case against the defendant

No.2. The plaintiff claimed that Sri Kumaraswamy had

corresponded with the defendant No.1 concerning the

property owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff again lodged

a complaint with the defendant No.1. Nonetheless, the

defendant No.1 issued a work order in favour of the

defendant No.2 concerning the property of the plaintiff.

The defendant No.2 attempted to interfere with the

possession of the plaintiff in the suit property under the

pretext of executing the work order. The defendant No.2

had also obtained a layout plan from the defendant No.1

on the basis of the fabricated general power of attorney in

favour of Sri Kumaraswamy. Hence, the plaintiff was

forced to seek for the reliefs mentioned above.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendant No.1 as

well as defendant No.2.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff

sold away the suit property to M/s.Gangaram Rao Trade

Links Limited in terms of the sale deed dated 12.09.2007

and later M/s.Gangaram Rao Trade Links Limited seems to

have sold portions of the suit property in favour of the

applicants, namely, Prashanth Ramu and Smt.

G.Mangamma in terms of two sale deeds dated 20.09.2007

and 16.06.2008. The applicants being the assignees in

interest of the suit property filed an application under

Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC to be

impleaded as supplemental plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in the

suit.

6. The said application was opposed by the

defendant No.2 who claimed that the sale deeds executed

in favour of the impleading applicants were not supported

by consideration and that the sale deeds were not acted

upon and that the possession of the property was not

delivered to them. Be that as it may, the defendant No.2

contested the claim of the impleading applicants and

contended that the cause of action did not survive and the

impleading applicants had to establish their claim

independently.

7. The Trial Court considered the contentions

raised by the plaintiff as well as the defendant No.2

against the impleading application and rejected it in terms

of the Order impugned in the present writ petition.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present

petition is filed.

9. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners /

impleading applicants submitted that the impleading

applicants had purchased the suit property and were

assignees who were entitled to contest the suit. He also

submitted that the cause of action did survive and they

were interested to pursue the suit to its logical end. The

learned senior counsel relied upon the following Judgments

in support of his contentions:

(1) Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 397];

(2) K. Venkataramaiah Setty vs B.R.Seetharamappa Setty and others [(2007) 1 Kant LJ 495];

      (3)    Bhagirathi Mahalik vs Markanda Barik
      [MANU/OR/0159/2014]; and
      (4)    Sri. V. Narayana Reddy vs Smt. Ani

Narayanan and Wg.Cdr.Y.V.Krishna Rao [AIR 2009 AP 124].

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.3 submitted that the suit reliefs were

essentially in personam to the plaintiff and therefore, the

impleading applicants were not entitled to come on record.

11. I have considered the submissions made by

the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the

learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

12. The suit was filed for declaratory relief, which

was based on a contentious fact, namely, the execution of

a power of attorney to bring about certain transactions

involving the defendants. These transactions definitely

eclipsed the right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule

property. The impleading applicants have purchased the

suit property on 'as is where is' basis. Therefore, the

impleading applicants were assignees in the true sense of

the term and in view of Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC.,

they were entitled to pursue the cause of action and rectify

the defects in their title to the suit schedule property. The

crucial test to determine whether the impleading

applicants were proper and necessary parties to the suit is,

whether the outcome of the suit could impact the title of

the impleading applicants to the suit schedule property. A

perusal of the averments of the impleading application as

well as the plaint clearly indicates that the right, title and

interest of the impleading applicants in the suit property

would be adversely impacted if the transactions entered

involving the defendants were not set at naught.

13. In that view of the matter, the impleading

applicants were necessary parties and they were interested

to pursue the suit to its logical end. Consequently, the

impugned order passed by the Trial Court in so far it

relates to rejecting I.A. No.I/2012 deserves to be set

aside. Hence, the following Order:

The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Order

dated 17.09.2014 passed by the Trial Court in so far

it relates to rejecting the application in I.A. No.I/2012

filed in O.S. No.1804/2007 by the impleading

applicants is set aside. The impleading applicants are

permitted to come on record as co-plaintiffs in the

suit. However, having regard to the fact that the suit

was filed in the year 2007, the impleading applicants

being assignees in interest from the plaintiff are

bound by the pleadings in the plaint and therefore,

they shall not be entitled to advance any additional

pleadings, except placing on record the documents of

title and other post-litem documents at the time of

their chief-examination. The Trial Court shall proceed

with the framing of issues and disposal of the suit on

merits within a period of two years from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sma