Praveen Bethapudi vs Savithramma on 2 November, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Praveen Bethapudi vs Savithramma on 2 November, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 02"" DAY OF aravaaaaaea; 20ggS1Onj._g
BEFORE   A A' 

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND  A4"  
REGULAR SECOND APPEALRNO;a1a237'rOiE20i0'  
BETWEEN: A A A   A  

Praveen Bethapudi, 

S/O Bethapudi, Aged 31 years,

Managing Director, ' 'A  A'  g   a _

M/S Milestones Projects PriiVa,te'--Limit5:d;'   

NO.823, 2"" crossa.1;:'*' Mam,   A  A

HAL 11 Stage, 4Ir}dira}aagar,".   1. V ' 

Bangalore -560        ...APPELLANT

(By Shri. S.uShekarrShet1y; advocate)

    iiiii 

. '-,VV/O'G'_OVindaraju,

A  {)/0.1'./Itiniyappa,

"A..gé':d 39 years,

_ T Residing at Haragadde Viliage,
V A Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk,

A  -Bangalore District.



Muniyappa
S/0 Late Ramakrishnappa,
Aged 64 years,

Govindappa
S/o Late Ramakrishnappa,

Aged 60 years,   

Srnt. Puttamma
W/0 Muniyappa,
Aged 56 years,

M. Lakshrnan
S/o Muniyappa,
Aged 44 years,

Srnt.     
W/0 M_._      

Aged 42 ,rsar.se,e,[o A  

Kurn. uVP.a1d1avvir  A V
  Lakshrnan, '

    ..... 

' V  Master Raghavendra
_ A ' ~.S'/o 1'v'!',"_v»La'x;:s'hn1an,
.__Age,d. l_3j.--y'ears,

Respondent No.9 being
Mira.o'r, represented by

 At 'His Mother Srnt. Padma
 Respondent No.7 as legal

And natural guardian.

Srnt. Lakshrnamma
W/o Anjanappa, aged about 56 years,

3



10. Smt. Rajeshwari
D/o Anjanappa,
W/o Radhakrishna,
Aged about 30 years,

1 1. Sri. Ramesh
S/o Anjanappa,   
Aged about 27 years, 1

Respondents No.2 to 11 are V

Residing at Haragadde Viliage,

Jigani Hobli, Aneka1Ta1uk,   "  3
Bangalore District. ,    ' .1': '"*._...RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. H.P. Lee}adharif";&  Advocate for

Caveator/Responde'nt)_ . A _ 

This "Section 100 of Code of Civil
?rocedure,i 1908,  judgment and decree dated
23.022010passedin'R.A..No.162/2009 on the file of the Principal

. iiiﬂistrigt See-.s'ions iiiidige, Bangaiore Rural District, Bangalore,

 fiied against the judgment and decree dated

02;09';200Qi.ii o:s.No.2213/2006 on the fife of the Principal Civil

 jVJudge"(Sr;Dn);Anekai.

it * his appeai coming on for Admission this day, the Court

it  -.._h"'de'}T%ivered the following: --

Z



JUDGMENT

The matter coming on for adrr1is'sionj;' itis to be_i'rroticffed that the sale deed in respect of the suit._p'roperty'-was. execured' favour' . C' of a private limited Company. c'ornpany a party to the suit. Though no issue Court in this regard, it was rapisedg a As is evident from the narration lower appellate Court, the suit was parties. It is apparent from the canseiititlie Vanda of the sale deed, which is produced in Co'nrt_,i"thati'the property was sold in favour of a eompany of which the appellant might have been the ._Director. This did not make the suit competent, as was necesisary to file the suit against the company and not A 5against.gan individual no matter that he was the Managing Director ..._l°ofthe Company. The company is an entity, which has purchased ilfthe property. Therefore, it is necessary to irnplead the company as

3. In View of the tenor of Section 64 sub--sec'tio'n:"L:(-Q)of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, is directed to refund the Court fee psiitii oirttthe of second appeal.

*alb/--.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court