Karnataka High Court
Sri S Chandra vs Sri M R Jagadeesh Kumar on 9 September, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:37123
WP No. 24689 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 24689 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S. CHANDRA,
S/O SHIVALINGALAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.144/2,
MNPM COLONY, HULIKERE, BELAGOLA POST,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK - 571 606,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFI,
S/O LATE ABDUL BASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
FLAT-NO-103, NO-11, J.J. RESIDENCY,
SANGAM ENCLAVE, HENNUR MAIN ROAD, KOTHANURU,
SHIVARAMKARANTHANAGARA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONERS
by JUANITA (BY SRI. A. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE)
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. M.R. JAGADEESH KUMAR,
S/O RANGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2. SMT. BAGYALAKSHMI,
W/O M.R. JAGADEEH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
BOTH RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT NO.64/1, II FLOOR, 10TH 'D' BLOCK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:37123
WP No. 24689 of 2024
10TH CROSS, KANAKANAGAR,
R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032.
3. SRI. B.V. VIJAYA,
S/O VENKATAKRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. HIG 175/B,
3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, R.K. NAGAR,
H BLOCK, MYSURU - 570 022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.N. RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
OS NO. 8897/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XLI ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-42) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners who are the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.6021/2023 and the defendants in O.S.No.8897/2013,
filed an application for clubbing the two suits, invoking Section
of 151 of C.P.C. The application has been rejected and
therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is
not in dispute that the parties in both the suits and the suit
schedule property are one and the same. The plaintiffs in
O.S.No.8897/2013 are seeking a declaration that they are the
NC: 2024:KHC:37123
joint and absolute owners of the suit schedule property and to
declare that the General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.2010
allegedly executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant Nos.1
and 4 is fraudulent and unenforceable, and they have also
sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 27.09.2012
executed and registered pursuant to the General Power of
Attorney dated 28.06.2010 is null and void and not binding on
the plaintiffs.
3. On the other hand, the petitioners, who are the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.6021/2023, have also sought for a
declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit
schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated
27.09.2012. They have also sought for a permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the suit schedule property. However, the Trial
Court has rejected the application on the ground that the cause
of action in both the suits are entirely different.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however,
submits that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the
application on the ground that the cause of action in both the
NC: 2024:KHC:37123
suits are entirely different. While placing reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
B.Santoshamma and Another Vs. D.Sarala and Another
reported in AIR Online 2020 SC 858, the learned counsel
submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that clubbing of
the suits will be for the sake of convenience, inter alia to save
time, costs, repetition of procedures and to avoid conflicting
judgments.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the suits filed by them were of the year 2013 and
are now in the stage of cross-examination of plaintiffs
witnesses, whereas the stage in O.S.No.6021/2023 filed by the
petitioners is commencement of trial. Therefore, learned
counsel submits that there is no infirmity that can be found in
the impugned order.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on perusing the
petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that
what was required for the Trial Court to consider was whether
the parties to the suit are one and the same and whether the
suit schedule property is also one and the same. The cause of
NC: 2024:KHC:37123
action may be different, however, that would not preclude the
Court from clubbing and hearing the matters. If it is found that
the dispute is in respect of the same immovable properties and
if declarations are sought in both suits, there would be a
possibility of conflicting judgments being rendered if the suits
are not clubbed. It is noticeable that the respondents are
claiming that the power of attorney, on the basis of which the
sale deed is executed in favour of the petitioners herein, is
fraudulent and therefore, they are seeking a declaration in
respect of the power of attorney as well as the sale deed.
7. The petitioners herein are also placing reliance on
the same sale deed and the basis for which the power of
attorney is said to have been executed by the respondents
herein. In that view of the matter, it is apt that this Court
should take note of the judgment cited to the learned counsel
for the petitioners, wherein it is held that such clubbing
together of the suits does not convert the suits into one action
as argued by the learned counsel therein. The suits retain their
separate identities, but having regard to the nature of the
dispute in both suits and that the parties are one and the same,
for the sake of convenience and to save time, costs, repetition
NC: 2024:KHC:37123
of procedures and more importantly, to avoid conflicting
judgments being rendered in the two suits, the two suits are
required to be clubbed, heard together and dispose of by the
same Court. It is also not disputed that both suits are pending
before the same Court. Hence, the following:
::ORDER::
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 15.07.2024 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
iii) I.A.No.1/2023 filed by the petitioners herein under
Section 151 of CPC is allowed while clubbing
O.S.No.8897/2013 with O.S.No.6021/2023 to be
heard and disposed of by the learned XLI Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-42).
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
GJM
CT: BHK
