Karnataka High Court

Sri Nagaraja vs Smt Lalitha on 28 June, 2024

                                             -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC:24231
                                                     WP No. 13744 of 2024




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 13744 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
                BETWEEN:

                1.    SRI. NAGARAJA,
                      S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
                      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

                2.    SRI. CHIKKAPPAIAH,
                      S/O LATE CHIKKANAGAPPA,
                      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

                3.    SRI. MUNINAGAPPA,
                      S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
                      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

                      PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
Digitally             R/AT MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI,
signed by V
MANJUSHA              BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 149.
BAI                                                           ...PETITIONERS
Location:
High Court of   (BY SRI. SHARATH N, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka

                AND:

                1.    SMT. LALITHA,
                      W/O RAMAIAH,
                      D/O LATE CHIKKAMUDDAIAH,
                      AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
                      R/AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE,
                      BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
                      BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE.
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:24231
                                   WP No. 13744 of 2024




2.   SMT. KANTHA,
     W/O SUDHAKAR,
     D/O LATE CHIKKAMUDDAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
     R/AT NO. 203, PUSHPNAJALI APARTMENT,
     RAYAN SARKAL, NEAR CANARA BANK,
     CHAMARAJPETE, BANGALORE.

3.   SMT. VANNAMALA,
     W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
     D/O LATE CHIKKAMUDDAIH,
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
     R/AT OPP AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
     MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
     BANGALORE NORTH.

4.   SRI. C. MANJUNATH,
     S/O LATE CHIKKAMUDDAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
     R/AT KADAYARAPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
     BANGALORE.

5.   SMT. SHYLAJA,
     W/O SRINIVAS,
     D/O LATE CHIKKAMUDDAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
     R/AT HUSKURU VILLAGE,
     BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
     HOSKOTE TALUK,
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

6.   SRI. K.C. SATISH,
     S/O LATE CHIKKAMUDDAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
     R/AT KADAYANAPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                           -3-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:24231
                                    WP No. 13744 of 2024




     JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
     BANGALORE.

7.   SMT. AKKAYAMMA,
     D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

8.   SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA,
     D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

9.   SRI. VENKATESH,
     S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

10. SRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
    S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

11. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
    D/O LATE MUNINAGAPPA @ MUNIGA,
    AGED MAJOR

12. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY,
    S/O LATE CHIKKANAGAPPA,
    AGED MAJOR,

13. SRI. VENKATESH @ PAPAIAH,
    S/O CHIKKANAGAPPA,
    AGED MAJOR,

14. SMT. AKKAYAMMA,
    S/O LATE CHIKKANAGAPPA,
    AGED MAJOR,
                            -4-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC:24231
                                  WP No. 13744 of 2024




15. SRI. MUNISHAMI,
    S/O LATE MUNIGA,
    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

16. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA,
    D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
    R/AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
    SULIBELE POST AND HOBLI,
    HOSKOTE TALUK
    BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

17. SMT. AKKAYAMMA,
    W/O LATE RAJANNA,
    AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

18. SRI. RAMANJINAPPA
    S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

19. SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
    S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

    RESPONDENT NOS. 7 TO 15 AND 17 TO 19
    ARE R/AT MYLANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI,
    BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 149.

20. SMT. PRAMILA,
    D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

    R/AT GOBBARAGUNTE VILLAGE,
    AVATHI POST, KASABA HOBLI,
    DEVANAHALLI TALUK
    BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R6.,
                                -5-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:24231
                                         WP No. 13744 of 2024




SERVICE OF NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE NOT
NECESSARY.,)

     THIS   WP   IS   FILED    UNDER    ARTICLE    227   OF   THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 22.3.24 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL IN
OS NO. 476/2010 ON IA NO. XXVI DATED 15.3.24 FILED BY
PETITIONERS HEREIN UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 OF CPC AS
PER ANNEXURE A. AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERECNING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

1. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1, 3(b) and

5(b) before the trial Court.

2. O.S.No.476/2010 came to be filed with the following

prayers:

"Wherefore, the plaintiffs prays that the Hon'ble court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in their favour of the Plaintiff against defendants:-

(a) Declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

NC: 2024:KHC:24231

schedule property on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 17-10-1969, 10-01-1971 and 19-

01-1972.

(b) Declare that the alleged registered partition deed dated 18-10-2007 is not binding on the Plaintiff.

(c) Restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties either by themselves or their agents or any person's claiming through or under them by way of permanent injunction.

(d) Grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court

framed the following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule properties on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 17-10-1969, 19-11-1971 and 19-01-1972?

2) Whether the defendant No.1 and legal heirs of defendant No.3 prove that they are the owners in possession of the suit schedule properties, same

NC: 2024:KHC:24231

has been divided through registered Partition Deed dated 18-10-2007?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the Partition Deed dated 18-10-2007 is not binding on him?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration?

5) What order or decree?"

4. The parties have let in their evidence. When the

matter was posted for the arguments, the defendants filed

an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section

151 of the CPC with the following prayers:

"That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the defendant's prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to appoint a Court Commissioner i.e., Taluk Surveyor, Yalahanka Taluk to conduct the spot inspection and to measure the Plaint schedule property and who is in possession in the suit schedule property and identify who is constructed building in the suit schedule property and to report the same before this Hon'ble court by preparing the sketch, in the interest of justice and equity."

NC: 2024:KHC:24231

5. The trial Court has dismissed the said application

holding that appointment of Court Commissioner under

the facts and circumstances of the case is not required.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

6. Admittedly, the suit is filed for a relief of declaration

on the basis of sale deeds, for a prayer of registered

partition deed not binding on the plaintiffs; and to restrain

the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

7. The issues are also framed keeping in mind the

prayer and the pleadings made by the parties.