Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagamma (Since Dead By Her Lrs) vs Sri. Ramakrishna on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 988 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGAMMA
(SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.,)
1. SMT. V. MANJULA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O. KRISHNA,
R/AT NO. 23,
OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
YELACHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 078.
2. SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA REDDY,
Digitally signed
by AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. SRI. RAVI
KARNATAKA
S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
4. SRI. PRAKASH
S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDENT OF YELACHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
BENGALURU-560 078.
SMT. GUNDAMMA
(NOTE SHE DIED AND THERE ARE NO LEGAL HEIRS)
5. SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O. LATE BYAPPA REDDY,
D/O. LATE YARRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALL HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUNIL S NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
2. SRI. LAKSHMIKANTHA
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
3. SRI. SHANKARAPPA
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
4. SMT. NEELAMMA
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5. SRI. VASU
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
6. SMT. L. GIRIJA
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
7. SRI. LOKANATH
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
8. SRI. VENKATESH
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 8 ARE
R/AT JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 078.
9. SMT. ANITHA
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 16, 10TH CROSS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
10. M/S. D. B. S. AND SONS
NO. 31, 11TH CROSS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
SMT. JAYAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
11. SRI. GOVINDARAJU,
S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA AND JAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
12. SRI. VENKATESH
S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA AND JAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
BOTH L.RS. ARE R/AT NO. 33, 10TH CROSS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
13. SRI. SHIVASHANKAR
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
NO. 30, 11TH CROSS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
14. SMT. SHIVARATNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESIDING AT NO. 81,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
15. SRI. PUTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESIDING AT 11TH CROSS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
16. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESIDING AT 10TH CROSS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
17. SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESIDING AT 10TH CROSS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
18. SMT. YELLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESIDING AT 11TH CROSS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
19. SMT. SUREKA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESIDING AT 10TH CROSS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
20. SRI. VISWANATHA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESIDING AT 10TH CROSS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
21. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
SRI. K. V. SHAMANNA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
22(A). SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O. LATE K. V. SHAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
22(B). SMT. SUJATHA
W/O. LATE K. V. SHAMANNA,
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
22(C). SMT. BHARATHI
W/O. LATE K. V. SHAMANNA,
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
22(D). SMT. MAMATHA
W/O. LATE K. V. SHAMANNA,
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
22(E). SMT. DANUJA
W/O. LATE K. V. SHAMANNA,
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
THE RESPONDENTS NO.22(A) TO 22(E) ARE
RESIDING AT JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
23. SRI. SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESIDING AT JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
24. SMT. VIJAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
HUSBANDS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESIDING AT JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
25. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESIDING AT JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 078.
26. SMT. C. P. INDIRA
D/O. C. PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 499,
9TH MAIN ROAD,
VYALIKAVAL,
BANGALORE-560 003.
27. SMT. H. P. SHYLAJA
W/O. B. P. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 19,
2ND CROSS, NAIDU LAYOUT,
RAJEEVA GANDHI ROAD,
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
J. P. NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 078.
28. SRI. NARENDRA REDDY
S/O. LATE ASWATH NARAYANA REDDY,
RESIDING AT 22/A,
ANJANADRI 4TH CROSS,
NAIDU LAYOUT,
JARAGANAHALLI,
J.P.NAGAR POST,
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
RAJIV GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 078.
29. SRI. PRAKASH
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
NO. 20/A, SAMRUDHI NILAYA NAIDU LAYOUT,
3RD CROSS, NEAR SINCERE SCHOOL,
JARGANAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 078.
30. SRI. ESWARACHARI
NO. 36, THANDAVESHWEARA NILAYA, NAIDU
LAYOUT,
3RD CROSS, NEAR SINCERE SCHOOL,
JARGANAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 078.
31. SMT. KALAVATHI NANDAPPA DALAVAYI
W/O. H. G. HINGALADAL,
RESIDING AT NO. 18, 2ND CROSS,
NAIDU LAYOUT,
3RD CROSS, NEAR SINCERE SCHOOL,
JARGANAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 078.
32. SRI. MAHADEV
RETIRED KEB EMPLOYEE NO. 17,
ARKSHWARA NILAYA,
NAIDU LAYOUT,
JARGANAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 078.
33. SRI. SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NO. 25, SHIVARATNA NILAYA NAIDU LAYOUT,
4TH CROSS, JARGANAHALLI,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
J. P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 078.
34. SRI. RAMESH. M
S/O. LATE SAMPATH KUMAR,
NO. 28, 4TH CROSS,
NAIDU LAYOUT,
3RD CROSS, JARGANAHALLI,
J. P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 078.
35. SRI. RANJITH KUMAR
S/O. LATE SAMPATH KUMAR,
NO. 28, 4TH CROSS,
NAIDU LAYOUT,
3RD CROSS, JARGANAHALLI,
J. P. NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 078.
36. SRI. ANANDA
S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YELACHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGLAORE-560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUSHA NANDISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R28 TO R35;
V/O DATED:01.07.2024, NOTICE TO R1 TO R27 AND R36
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2023 PASSED IN O.S. NO.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
WP No. 988 of 2024
9808/2006, ON THE FILE OF CCH-39, AT ANNEXURE-D AND IN
TURN ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.9808/2006 on the file of the 24th
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, have filed this
writ petition challenging the correctness of an order dated
15.12.2023 by which an application filed under Order I Rule
10(2) of CPC, was rejected.
2. The suit in O.S.No.9108/2006 was filed for declaration of
title of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule property, recovery of
possession of a portion of the suit schedule property which was
illegally occupied by the defendants, mandatory injunction to
remove the unauthorized construction and for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their
possession.
3. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was owned
and possessed by Yerrappa who was registered as an occupant
by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru south taluk. The said Yerrappa
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
had given away the suit property to the share of
Sri.Venkatappa Reddy, Smt.Gundamma and Smt.Rajamma.
Yerrappa died on 09.08.1986 after which, the revenue records
stood transferred to the names of Sri.Venkatappa Reddy,
Smt.Gundamma and Smt.Rajamma. Plaintiffs claimed that
Sri.Venkatappa Reddy died on 07.11.1991 and that the Plaintiff
Nos.1 to 5 inherited the share of Sri.Venkatappa Reddy. They
contended that the defendants were strangers to the suit
property and that all of them had trespassed into it and had
constructed a building therein unauthorisedly. Therefore, the
plaintiffs sought for relief of declaration of their title and for
recovery of possession after demolition of the construction put
up by the plaintiffs.
4. The defendants contested the suit and filed written
statement contending that Yerrappa had sold the suit property
on 09.08.1986 itself and that a layout of residential sites was
formed and conveyed to various purchasers. It was contended
that the plaintiffs were aware of the fact of sale of suit property
by Yerrappa but created documents to lay a claim to the suit
property.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
5. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed issues
and set down the case for trial. After recording his chief
examination, the plaintiff No.2 filed an application under Order
I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead Respondent Nos.28 to 35 on the
ground that they were in possession of the portions of the suit
property. This application was opposed by the Respondent
Nos.28 to 35 on the ground that the plaintiffs were in the habit
of extorting money from the site owners who were in
possession of the suit property and had entered into
unconscionable settlements with them. They contend that they
were in lawful possession of the suit property having purchased
it from Yerrappa. They contended that the plaintiffs'
predecessor had executed some documents, confirming that
Yerrappa had conveyed the property to various persons.
Therefore, they contended that the plaintiffs have
acknowledged the fact that their vendor Yerrappa had already
lost title to the suit property. They contended that these facts
were well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the
application filed to implead the applicants was to extort money
from them.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
6. The Trial Court considered this contention and in terms of
the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that
the Court Commissioner had submitted his report in the year
2007 itself, which showed that residential sites were formed
and various persons were in occupation of portions of the suit
property. It held that the defendants have filed the instant
application after nearly 17 years from the date of suit. Thus, it
held that the impleading applicants were not proper and
necessary parties and rejected the application in terms of the
impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
plaintiffs are before this Court in this writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the
proposed respondents are also claiming through the deceased
Yerrappa just the way other defendants had claimed and
therefore, they too are proper and necessary parties to the
suit. He contends that without impleading the said persons,
the relief sought for would be incomplete. Therefore, he prays
that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed
be allowed.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
8. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.28 to 35
submits that the plaintiffs were aware of the conveyance made
in favour of the proposed Respondent Nos.28 to 35. She
contends that the plaintiffs in order to extract money, have
filed the instant application after 17 years from the date of the
suit. She, therefore, contends that the application not being
bonafide, cannot be intertained.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondent
Nos.28 to 35.
10. A perusal of the objections filed by the Respondent
Nos.28 to 35 shows that they were claiming title to portions of
the suit property through Yerrappa. Plaintiffs were also
claiming title to the suit property through Yerrappa. Therefore,
the question whether Yerrappa had sold the property in the
year 1986 and whether residential sites were formed which
were sold subsequently to various purchasers including
respondent Nos.28 to 35 and whether they constructed houses
and were residing there, are the questions that arise for
consideration in the suit. If the plaintiffs are able to establish
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
that Yerrappa did not convey the suit property, then they are
bound to succeed.
11. In so far as the present application is concerned, the
same is filed nearly after 17 years after filing of the suit and
that too when the suit was set down for evidence, the Court
Commissioner had filed a report in the year 2007, which
indicated that sites were formed and many purchasers were in
possession of various portions, which included Respondent
Nos.28 to 35. If that be so, the plaintiffs were bound to have
verified the persons who were in possession of the suit property
and must have taken steps immediately after the suit was filed
or at least after the Commissioner submitted a report.
However, the plaintiff kept quite for 17 years and thereafter,
have filed the instant application to implead the proposed
respondents. This is perhaps done to keep the litigation alive.
In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the
Trial Court cannot be found fault with.
12. Therefore, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
However, liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs to urge this as a
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42436
ground in any appeal that may be filed against the Judgment
and Decree that may be passed in the suit.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
BNV
