S Govindu vs Sri B N Jayaprakash
2022 Latest Caselaw 3593 Kant

                          1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2022

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

     WRIT PETITION NO.22939 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

S. GOVINDU,
S/O PAMULA VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31, VENKATESWARA NILAYA,
DASAPPA LAYOUT,
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 016.                    ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIVEK N, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. B.N. JAYAPRAKASH,
       S/O LATE N. NARASIMHAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
       R/AT VENKATAMMA COCONUT GARDEN,
       SEEGEHALLI, VIRGONAGAR POST,
       BANGALORE - 560 049.

2.     SRI. JAWAHARLAL,
       S/O LATE DHANRAJ,
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT NO.45/4,
       CASTLE STREET, ASHOK NAGAR,
       BANGALORE - 560 025.          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.N.GANESH AND
    SRI.P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATES FOR C-R1)
                            2


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.537/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT AT BANGALORE; AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 18.10.2021 PASSED ON JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE
PLAINTIFF NO.1 AND THE DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.537/2014
ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-E.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff No.2,

challenging the order dated 18.10.2021 passed on

Joint Memo filed by the plaintiff No.1 and defendants

who are respondents herein in O.S.No.537/2014 by the

IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District, Bengaluru.

2. Brief facts are that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2

have filed suit for declaration to declare that the

plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the

suit schedule property, and on service of notice

defendant/respondent No.1 entered appearance and

filed written statement denying the averments made in

the plaint. In the meanwhile, plaintiff No.1 and

defendant have jointly filed a memo stating that the

plaintiff No.1 has executed a registered confirmation

deed dated 23.06.2016 in favour of defendant by

confirming the earlier registered sale deed dated

03.09.2013, and accordingly sought for dismissal of

the suit in respect of the plaintiff No.1. The said memo

was opposed by the plaintiff No.2/petitioner herein.

The Trial Court, after considering the material on

record, by order dated 18.10.2021, passed the

impugned order holding that the joint memo filed by

the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant, is just and proper

and accordingly dismissed the suit as against the

plaintiff No.1. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff

No.2 has preferred this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri.Vivek N., advocate on behalf of

Sri.Rahul S Reddy, appearing for the petitioner and

Sri.P.B Raju along with Sri.K.N. Ganesh, learned

counsels appearing for the caveator - respondent

No.1.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contended that, during the pendency of the suit, the

plaintiff No.1 and defendant have colluded with each

other and accordingly the confirmation deed was

executed on 23.06.2016 and therefore, plaintiff

No.2/petitioner herein is the owner in possession of the

entire extent of land and in the event, the joint memo

is accepted the right of the plaintiff No.2, would be

prejudiced and accordingly he sought for interference

of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri.K.N.Ganesh, learned counsel

appearing for the caveator - respondent No.1, invited

the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by

the trial Court at para-9 of the judgment and he

further contended that the plaintiff No.2 has filed an

application under Order I Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151

of C.P.C., to transpose the plaintiff No.1 as defendant

No.2 and the said application came to be allowed and

plaintiff No.1 has been arrayed as defendant No.2 and

in that view of the matter, he submitted that there is

no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial

Court. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ

petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for the parties, it is undisputed fact that, the suit for

declaration has been filed by the plaintiff No.1 and 2

together against the defendant and during the

pendency of the suit plaintiff No.1 and

defendant/respondent No.1 herein have settled their

disputes. On perusal of the plaint, the plaintiff No.1

has executed a registered confirmation deed dated

23.06.2016 in favour of defendant by confirming the

earlier registered sale deed dated 03.09.2013, and

accordingly the Trial Court, having taken note of the

fact that, the relief sought for by the plaintiff No.1 has

become otiose and accordingly accepted the joint

memo filed by the plaintiff No.1 and defendant. I have

also noticed from the writ papers that as per

Annexure-F, plaintiff No.2 has filed an application to

implead the plaintiff No.1 as defendant No.2, and the

said application has been allowed by the Trial Court.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any error

committed by the Trial Court, accepting the joint

memo filed by the plaintiff No.1 and defendant.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GRD