Karnataka High Court
Smt. Manjula vs Sri. Munishamappa on 4 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9045
WP No. 56947 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 56947 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJULA
D/O RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUGGATTA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560050.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA
S/O. LATE JADIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUGGATTA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TLAUK,
Digitally BENGALURU DISTRICT-560050.
signed by BS
RAVIKUMAR
2. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
Location:
HIGH D/O LATE JADIYAPPA @
COURT OF NAGASHETTYHALLI JADIYAPPA,
KARNATAKA W/O CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUGGATTA VILLAGE,
HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560050.
3. SRI. MUNIRAMAIAH
S/O.LATE JADIYAPPA @
NAGASHETTYHALLI JADIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUGGATTA VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9045
WP No. 56947 of 2018
HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560050.
4. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
S/O.LATE JADIYAPPA @
NAGASHETTYHALLI JADIYAPPA,
W/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUGGATTA VILLAGE,
HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560050.
5. SMT AKKAYYAMMA
D/O.LATE JADIYAPPA @
NAGASHETTYHALLI JADIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUGGATTA VILLAGE,
HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560050.
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 18.08.2023, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS
DISPENSED WITH;
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.08.2023 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, AT DEVANAHALLLI DATED 07.11.2018 IN
O.S.NO.452/2014 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10[2] READ WITH SECTION
151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FOUND AT
ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9045
WP No. 56947 of 2018
ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S. No.452/2014 on the file of
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, has filed
this writ petition challenging the correctness of the order
dated 07.11.2018 by which an application filed by
respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein under Order I Rule 10(2)
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(for short, 'CPC') was allowed.
2. The suit in O.S. No.452/2014 was filed for
recovery of possession of the suit schedule property which
was a residential house bearing site No.64 situate at
Suggatta village, Jala hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
3. The defendant though served with the Court
summons did not submit his written statement. Later, an
application was filed by the defendant for permission to file
a written statement, which was rejected. Therefore, the
said suit was not contested.
4. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein
filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with
NC: 2024:KHC:9045
Section 151 of CPC., to come on record as defendant
Nos.2 to 5 in the suit. They contended that they had filed
a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.
No.437/2014 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC.,
Devanahalli in respect of the very same property which
was the subject matter of the suit in O.S. No.452/2014.
Therefore, they claimed that they were interested in the
outcome of the suit in O.S.No.452/2014 and hence,
prayed that they be impleaded in the suit.
5. This application was contested by the
plaintiff/petitioner herein who contended that the
respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein were strangers to the suit
schedule property and were not interested therein and
therefore, they were not proper and necessary parties for
the adjudication of the suit in O.S. No.452/2014.
6. The Trial Court after noticing that the
respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein had also filed a suit for
partition and separate possession in O.S. No.437/2014
where they had challenged a gift deed executed in favour
NC: 2024:KHC:9045
of the plaintiff in O.S No.452/2014 dated 12.05.2005, held
that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein were necessary
parties for the adjudication of the suit. Hence, it allowed
the application and permitted the respondent Nos.2 to 5
herein to come on record as defendants in the suit in O.S.
No.452/2014.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff
has filed this writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff / petitioner
contends that the suit property was granted to Sri
Rajanna, the father of the petitioner, on 21.06.1992 under
the 'Ashraya Scheme' which was thereafter gifted to the
plaintiff by her father on 12.05.2005. He contended that
the defendant who was her paternal uncle was permitted
to occupy the suit property. However, when the petitioner
required the suit property, her uncle refused to hand over
the same and therefore, she was compelled to file a suit
for recovery of possession. He further contended that
respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein who claimed that the suit
NC: 2024:KHC:9045
property was a joint family property were not entitled to
come on record in the suit in O.S No.452/2014 as the suit
property was never a property of the joint family.
9. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 refused to receive
the notice issued by this Court and hence, service of notice
to them was held sufficient.
10. A perusal of the suit filed in O.S. No.437/2014
shows that plaintiffs therein claimed that the suit property
was a property of the family and that they too were
entitled for a share therein. They also contested the gift
deed dated 12.05.2005 purportedly executed in favour of
the plaintiff in O.S. No.452/2014 by her father in respect
of the suit property. Therefore, the dispute revolved
round the question whether the suit property was the
property of the joint family or not. Therefore, no exception
could be taken to the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court and the same is upheld.
11. In order to avoid conflicting judgments in the
suits, it is appropriate that the suit filed in O.S.
NC: 2024:KHC:9045
No.452/2014, which is pending consideration before the
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli is
transferred to the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC., Devanahalli, where O.S. No.437/2014 is pending
consideration. The III Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC., Devanahalli shall club both the suits i.e., O.S.
No.452/2014 and O.S. No.437/2014 and record evidence
in O.S. No.437/2014 by treating it as a lead suit and pass
a common judgment in both the suits.
The writ petition stands disposed off on the above
terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMA
