Karnataka High Court
Sri. M R Lingaraju vs Smt. Parimala on 5 January, 2023
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
WP No. 3626 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 3626 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M R LINGARAJU
S/O LATE M.RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.63, I CROSS,
KEMPAGOWDANAGAR,
VISHVANEEDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 091.
2. SRI.M.D.NANDISH
S/O LATE M.R.DRUVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
MADABAI, MADABAI HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
Digitally signed 3. SRI.M.D.NARESH
by VIDYA G R S/O M.R.DRUVARAJ
Location: High AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
Court of
Karnataka MADABAI, MADABAI HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. SMT.M.R.MAHDEVAMMA
W/O M.G.RANASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
-2-
WP No. 3626 of 2021
MADABAI VILLAGE & HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
5. SMT.R.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O B.GANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
MADABAI VILLAGE & HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
6. SMT.M.R.GOWRAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
MADABAI VILLAGE & HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
7. SRI.M.R.RAJANNA
S/O LATE M.RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
MADABAI VILLAGE & HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
8. SRI.M.R.NAGARAJU
S/O LATE M.RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
MADABAI VILLAGE & HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
9. SRI.M.R.MADAPPA
S/O LATE M.RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
-3-
WP No. 3626 of 2021
MADABAI VILLAGE & HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
10. SRI.M.R.PUTTAPPA
S/O LATE M.RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
MADABAI VILLAGE & HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
11. SRI.M.R.SHASHIKALA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
MADABAI VILLAGE & HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PARIMALA
W/O LATE M.R.DRUVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
MADABAI VILLAGE & HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. SMT.VARALAKSHMAMMA
W/O B.C.NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
MADABAI VILLAGE & HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. SMT.SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVAMADDAPPA,
-4-
WP No. 3626 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.F-620, BHARATHNAGAR I STAGE,
DWARAKAVASA ROAD,
VISHVANEEDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 091.
4. SRI.NAGARAJU
S/O LATE MALIGAPPA @ THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
NO.244, 40 FEET ROAD,
NEAR ST.ANNS SCHOOL,
KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 091.
5. SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
NO.15, 18TH MAIN,
MUNESHWARA BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 026.
6. KUM VIJAYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE VEERAMAYAPPA @ PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
JUNIOR ASSISTANT, DEPOT NO.31,
BMTC, SUMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 058.
7. SMT.UMA
D/O LATE VEERAMAYAPPA @ PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.87, SUSHMITHA SHUSHANTH NILAYA,
8TH CROSS, BEHIND VINAYAKA TEMPLE,
ANNAPOORNESHWARAI NAGAR, 6TH BLOCK,
NAGARABHAVI II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 072.
8. SMT.KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH
DEAD BY LRS
-5-
WP No. 3626 of 2021
DEFENDANT NOS.9 TO 12 ARE THE LRS OF
DEFENDANT NO.8.
9. SMT.BHARATHI
W/O LATE S.MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
NO.33, 7TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 071.
10. KUMARI VARSHA
D/O LATE S.MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
NO.33, 7TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
ARGAHARA DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 071.
11. KUM SHAMA
W/O LATE S.MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 25 YESRS,
NO.33, 7TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 071.
12. SMT.GEETHAMMA
W/O SUNDARARAJ
D/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
4TH CROSS, PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT,
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD,
BENGLAURU-560 072.
13. SMT.SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE SATHYAPREMAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
NOS.9 AND 10, DHARSHAN NILAYA
4TH FLOOR, 22ND CROSS,
MALAGALA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 072.
-6-
WP No. 3626 of 2021
14. SRI.SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE SATHYAPREMAKUMAR
DEAD BY LRS
14(A) SMT.PEENA SHIVAKUMAR
W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
14(B) AARAV
S/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
14(C) JANHAVI
D/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.15(B) & (C)
MINORS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
NATURAL GUARDIAN
ALL ARE RESIDENT AT NO.8,
4TH FLOOR, 22ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
MALAGAL, NAGARBHAVI II PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 078.
15. SRI.DHANANJAYA @ BABU
S/O LATE SATHYAPREMAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NOS.9 AND 10, DHARSHAN
4TH FLOOR, 22ND CROSS,
MALAGALA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 072.
16. SRI.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE SATHYA PREMAKUMAR
NOS.9 AND 10, DHARSHAN,
4TH FLOOR, 22ND CROSS,
MALAGALA MAIN ROAD,
BENGLAURU-560 072.
... RESPONDENTS
-7-
WP No. 3626 of 2021
(BY SRI. N. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 10.08.2021, NOTICE TO R1, R3 TO R16
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, MAGADI IN O.S.NO.296/2016 DATED 21.12.2019
PASSED ON I.A.3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-Q AND ALLOW
I.A.NO.3 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners have sought for setting aside of
the order dated 21.12.2019 passed on I.A.No.3 at
Annexure-'Q' and to allow I.A.No.3.
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.296/2016 and have filed I.A.No.3 under Section
151 of CPC to stay the execution proceedings in
Ex.No.32/2000 pending before the Civil Judge at Magadi
till disposal of the suit. The said application came to be
dismissed by the impugned order which has been
challenged in the present petition.
WP No. 3626 of 2021
3. The application is filed by one Lingaraju who is
stated to be the legal representative of Kempamma.
Objections were filed to the said application and it was
specifically asserted that there was an earlier decree in
O.S.No.93/1990 filed for specific performance of the
contract which suit came to be decreed on 20.12.1997.
4. It is submitted that Ex.No.32/2000 was filed
seeking to execute the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.93/1990. It is further submitted that Kempamma
who is the mother of the first plaintiff had filed an Objector
application in Ex.Petition No.32/2000 which came to be
rejected. Accordingly it is submitted that the sale deed
having been executed on 13.12.2001 would not confer any
right in favour of the said Kempamma. The trial court
after a detailed hearing has rejected the application and
has pointed out that plaintiffs are claiming right over the
property stating hat their mother namely Kempamma W/o
WP No. 3626 of 2021
Ramanna has purchased the suit property as per sale
deed dated 13.12.2001.
5. It is further pointed out by the trial court
regarding dismissal of the objector application filed by
Kempamma on 31.03.2009 in Ex.No.32/2000. With
respect to the application filed under Order 21 Rule 101
CPC, the trial court has observed that the said order
rejecting the application of Kempamma as objector dated
03.02.2011 has attained finality and has not been
challenged and accordingly, the claim of the plaintiffs in
the present proceedings is barred by resjudicata, as also
claim relating to declaration with respect to judgment and
decree is barred by limitation.
6. Heard both sides.
7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs claim right
through Kempamma and as pointed out by the trial court,
the application filed under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC, by
Kempamma in Ex.No.32/2000 came to be rejected. Thus,
- 10 -
WP No. 3626 of 2021
it is clear that purchase of property by Kempamma is on
13.12.2001 while O.S.No.93/1990 was disposed off on
20.12.1997 and admittedly, as on the date of purchase by
Kempamma, execution proceedings were pending.
8. The application of the Objector having been
rejected, the present claim of persons claiming through
Kempamma in the present suit cannot be decided without
taking note of the order passed in Ex.No.32/2000 on the
application filed under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC, by
Kempamma.
9. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the trial court. The petition is
rejected. Needless to state that after adjudication of
O.S.No.296/2016 the consequences of the final order
would enure to the benefit of the parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NP
