Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayana Swamy vs Sri Nagaraj on 16 December, 2021
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.32571/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARAYANA SWAMY,
S/O ANNEYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
2. SRI A. MUNIRAJU,
S/O ANNEYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT 4TH CROSS,
ANNEYAPPA COMPOUND,
BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-4560076. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI UMESH B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SRI NAGARAJ,
S/O LATE ANNEYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. SRI JYOTHIRLINGAPPA,
S/O LATE ANNEYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
3. SRI MANGAPPA,
S/O LATE ANNEYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
2
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT 4TH CROSS,
ANNEYAPPA COMPOUND,
BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560076.
4. SMT. PANKAJ VISWARAJ,
W/O VISWARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1787,
18TH 'A' MAIN ROAD,
JP NAGAR 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560078.
5. SMT. PUSHPA RANI,
W/O BHAKTHA VATSAM,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT 534/344/8,
NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ,
BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE,
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560076.
6. SMT. SHANTHAMMA,
W/O LATE DODDAYELLAPPA,
D/O LATE ANNAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT MALENAHALLASANDRA ,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANNERGHATTA POST,
BENGALURU-560083.
7. SMT. NAGAMMA,
W/O PUTTAPPA,
D/O LATE ANNAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT BILAKAHALLI LAYOUT,
4TH CROSS, ANNEYAPPA COMPOUND,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560076.
3
8. SMT. MANGAMMA,
W/O MUNIRAMASWAMY,
D/O LATE ANNAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT MANTAPPA VILLAGE,
BANNERGHATTA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-560083.
9. SMT. VIMALA,
W/O LINGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE,
ANNEYAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR MANGAMMA TEMPLE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560076. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI N. SHARATH, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S.PAVAMANA ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE FOR R-5;
SRI R. OMKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-9;
R-1, R-2, R-3 AND R-8 ARE SERVED;
NOTICE TO R-6 AND R-7 STANDS WAIVED
VIDE ORDER DATED 27.10.2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.06.2019 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-7) IN
OS.NO.2924/2008 ON IA.NO.1/2018 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The petitioners are the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.2924/2008 on the file of the XXII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the civil
Court'). The petitioners have impugned the civil Court's
order dated 22.06.2019, and the civil Court by this
order has rejected the petitioners' application
(I.A.No.1/18) under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
2. The petitioners have filed this suit in
O.S.No.2924/2008 for partition of the immovable
properties listed in the schedule appended to the plaint,
including a portion of the land in Survey No.1 described
as measuring 2,500 sq.ft. of Bilekahalli Village, Begur
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [the suit schedule Item
No.4]. The petitioners in filing their present application
want to amend the plaint to include the plea to explain
that this property is part of a larger property owned by
their grandfather's brother and on his demise, the
petitioners' father was in possession, and neither their
father nor any other member of the family have
executed the sale deed for this property in favour of the
ninth respondent. They also propose to refer to the
earlier suit commenced by second petitioner against the
some of the family members including the ninth
respondent in O.S.No.6849/2004 but to assert that
such suit is dismissed only on the ground that it was a
suit for partial partition without including all the
properties. The petitioners, in addition to the plea as
aforesaid, want to include the challenge to the sale deed
dated 03.07.2003 executed in favour of the ninth
respondent.
3. The civil Court has rejected the petitioners'
application observing that the earlier suit in
O.S.No.6849/2004 is dismissed on merits and the
second petitioner has not filed any appeal calling in
question the dismissal of the said suit. The civil Court
has also observed that Issue No.3 in such suit is
whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated
03.07.2003 is not binding on them, and the finding in
this regards has attained finality.
4. As is obvious from the learned counsel's
submission, the petitioners' grievance with the
impugned order is because they contend that the claim
for partition insofar as item No.4 has not been decided
and the suit is disposed of only because it is a suit for
partial partition. However, it is seen from the Judgment
dated 21.01.2014 in O.S.No.6849/2004, the questions
such as whether the second petitioner shows that the
sale deed in favour of the ninth respondent is not
binding on him and whether the subject property is sold
in favour of the ninth respondent for family necessities
are decided in favour of the ninth respondent.
5. In answering these Issues, it is concluded
that the sale deed in favour of the ninth respondent has
been executed for the purposes of repayment of the debt
obtained by one of the family members for family
maintenance and development and because the sale
deed is executed for family necessities, the sale deed
would bind the second petitioner-the plaintiff. In the
light of this categorical finding, this Court is not
persuaded to opine that the civil Court has erred in
rejecting the petitioners' application.
Therefore, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
