Karnataka High Court
K M Asha Kumari vs K M Basavarajappa on 19 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7019
WP No. 24279 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 24279 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
K. M. ASHA KUMARI,
D/O. K. M. BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O VIDYANAGARA,
VINAYAKA BADAVANE,
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. NARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K. M. BASAVARAJAPPA,
S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. K. M. ARAVIND KUMAR
S/O K M BASAVARAJAPPA,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
VANDANA S
Location: High 3. K. M. ASHOK KUMAR
Court of Karnataka
S/O K M BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT KANDANAKOVI VILLAGE,
ANAGOD HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 556.
4. CHANNABASAMMA
D/O SHIVALINGAPPA M.,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE,
BELICHOUD HOBLI, JAGALU TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7019
WP No. 24279 of 2023
(BY SRI. M.N. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O. DATED 09.02.2024,
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
15/09/2023 IN O.S. NO. 16/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE ON I.A.
NO. 11 BY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PROPOSED R4 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF CPC VIDE
ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2020 is directed
against the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.11
whereby the said application filed by the respondent No.4 seeking
impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC was allowed by the Trial
court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
plaintiff-petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit against her father
K.M.Basavarajappa, respondent No.1-defendant No.1 and her 2
brothers K.M.Aravind Kumar and K.M.Ashok Kumar / defendant
NC: 2024:KHC:7019
Nos.2 & 3 for partition and separate possession of her alleged
shared in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other
reliefs. During the pendency of the said suit,
Smt.Chennabasamma-respondent No.4 herein who is none other
than the sister of respondent No.1-Basavarajappa filed an instant
application seeking impleadment interalia contending that she also
has share in the suit schedule properties. The said application
having been opposed by the plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to
pass the impugned order allowing the application aggrieved by
which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present
petition.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial
Court having noticed that the respondent No.4-impleading
applicant had already instituted one more suit in O.S.No.153/2023
in relation to the larger joint family, came to the erroneous
conclusion that she was entitled to come on record in the present
suit also. In this context, the Trial Court failed to consider and
appreciate that the present suit in O.S.No.16/2020 is restricted to
the smaller joint family of Basavarajappa and his children i.e.,
petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and the scope of the
NC: 2024:KHC:7019
instant suit cannot be enlarged or expanded by impleading other
siblings of Basavarajappa especially when one more suit in
O.S.No.153/2023 had already been instituted by impleading
applicant which is pending adjudication before the Trial Court. At
any rate, any judgment, order, decree passed / to be passed in
O.S.No.16/2020 would not be binding upon the impleading
applicant nor will the same affect her alleged right title interest or
possession over the subject matter of O.S.No.16/2020 and all rival
contentions between the parties would necessarily have to be
adjudicated upon by in the respective suits without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the parties. Under these circumstances, I
am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by
the Trial Court which does not take into consideration that the
impleading applicant-respondent No.4 was neither a proper nor a
necessary party to the suit deserves to be set aside and the
impleadment application deserves to be disposed of by issuing
certain directions.
5. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed
NC: 2024:KHC:7019
(ii) The impugned order dated 15.09.2023 in
O.S.No.16/2020 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Davanagere, passed on I.A.No.11, is hereby set aside.
(iii) I.A.No.11 filed by the respondent No.4-impleading
applicant is disposed of by directing that any judgment, decree,
order passed / to be passed in O.S.No.16/2020 would not be
binding upon in the impleading applicant or other parties to
O.S.No.153/2023 nor will it affect their respective right, title,
interest, possession etc., if any in the subject matter of
O.S.No.16/2020 in any manner whatsoever.
(iv) Further all rival contentions between the parties in both
O.S.No.16/2020 and O.S.No.153/2023 are kept open and no
opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DHA
