Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shankar Reddy vs Smt. Thimmalu on 11 April, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W. P. NO.14204/2017 (GM - CPC)
BETWEEN
Sri. Shankar Reddy
S/o late Chikkaabbaiah Reddy,
Aged about 56 years
Residing at No.496,
KFC Layout, 6th Cross,
Kasavanahali,
Sarjapura Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 037 ... Petitioner
(By Sri D.M.Manjunath, Advocate)
AND :
1. Smt. Thimmalu
D/o Sri Late ChikkaAbbaiah Reddy
W/o Sri T Krishna Reddy
Aged About 58 Years
Resident of No 107, 1st Cross
Ankanna Reddy Road,
Doddabanaswadi
Bangalore - 560043
2. Smt Renuka
D/o Sri late ChikkaAbbaiah Reddy
Aged about 51 years
Resident of Cinegehalli Village
Tayaluru Hobli,
2
Mulabagilu Taluk
Kolar District
3. Smt Uma
D/o Sri Late ChikkaAbbaiah Reddy
W/o late Venkataswamy
Aged about 46 years
Residing at No 118,
2nd Main, Thimmareddy Layout
Horamavu main Road
Bangalore - 560043
4. Smt.Shakunthalamma
W/o Late Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 66 years,
5. Sri Raghu
S/o Late Krishna Reddy
Aged about 41 years,
6. Sri Manjunath Reddy
S/o Late Krishna Reddy
Aged about 36 years,
7. Smt.Ratnamma
D/o DoddaAbbaiah Reddy
Aged about 75 years,
8. Smt.Nagamma
D/o Late Dodda Abbaiah Reddy
Aged about 73 years,
9. Smt.Parvathamma
D/o Late DoddaAbbaiah Reddy
Aged about 71 years,
10. Sri Veerabhadra Reddy
S/o Late Dodda Abbaiah Reddy
Aged about 70 years,
3
11. Smt.Neelakanata Reddy
D/o Late.DoddaAbbaiah Reddy
Aged about 56 years,
Respondent No.4 to 11 are
Residing at "Shyla Nilaya", No.161
Next to Leela Palace Apartments
Chelakere, Kalyananagara Post,
Bangalore - 560 043
12. Smt.Lakshmamma
D/o Late Chikka Abbaiah Reddy
Aged about 71 years,
R/at No.84, Chelakere
Kalyananagara Post,
Bangalore - 560 043
13. Sri Srinivas Reddy
D/o Late Chikka Abbaiah Reddy
Aged about 54 years,
R/at No.76/110,
Muneshwara Temple,
Kalyananagara Post,
Bangalore - 560 043
14. Smt.Sujatha,
W/o Late Nagesh Reddy
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.84, Chelakere
Kalyananagara Post,
Bangalore - 560 043
15. The Commissioner,
Bengaluru Development Authority
Kumara Krupa West, B.B.Road,
Bangalore - 01. ... Respondents
(By Sri Krishna Murthy .M, Adv. for C/R1-R3
Vide order dated 11.4.2017 notice to
R-4 to R-14 is dispensed with)
4
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dtd:13.3.2017 passed by the Hon'ble XLI Additional City
Civil Judge, CCH 42, Bangalore in O.S.No.6144/2011 which
is produced as annexure-A and permit the petitioner to
address arguments on the main suit and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri.D.M.Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are plaintiffs in O.S.No.6144/2011 pending on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. In the said suit, an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC came to be filed by plaintiff to incorporate in the schedule of properties after item No.12, as item Nos. 13 and 14. Trial court after considering rival contentions, allowed the application by impugned order dated 13.3.2017. Same is called in question by defendant 5 No.10 contending inter alia properties sought to be included in plaint schedule are not the properties which had fallen to the share of the defendants' family and as such this could not be the subject matter of the dispute between the parties. He would also submit that said application is filed at a belated stage and as such same could not have been allowed by the trial court.
3. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that trial court has taken note of the contention of the plaintiff that properties proposed to be included in the plaint schedule was claimed to be joint family properties and as such it has held that suit for partial partition would not be maintainable and all the properties belonging to the family is to be included. Suit in question is for partition & separate possession. As to whether the properties included in the plaint schedule are Joint Family properties or it is self acquired properties of the defendants would be an issue to be considered 6 only if such plea is on record. Hence, trial court has permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating two additional properties. As such the contention of Sri.Manjunath cannot be accepted. Trial court has also opined that defendant would also have an opportunity to file additional written statement and cross examine the plaintiff in the event of plaintiff choosing to lead further evidence. As such, amendment of plaint which has been allowed by trial court does not call for interference. No grounds. Hence, Writ Petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RS/* CT: PR