Karnataka High Court
Smt. Aswathamma vs Sri., Muniswamy Reddy @ Sunka ... on 10 July, 2017
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NOs.16957 & 19201- 19202 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
Between:
1. Smt.Aswathamma
W/o. late Krishna Reddy
Aged about 75 years
2. Sri.Keshava Reddy @ Sri.Raja Reddy
S/o. late Krishna Reddy
Aged about 45 years.
3. Sri.Shivarama Reddy
S/o. late Krishna Reddy
Aged about 50 years
4. Smt.Sundaramma @ Smt. Sunandamma
W/o. M.Srinivas Reddy
Aged about 54 years.
Petitioners No.1 to 4 are residing at
Muthanallur Village, Sarjapur Hobli
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District - 560 099.
5. Smt.Kamalamma
W/o. Gopal Reddy
Aged about 52 years
Residing at Kavala Hosahalli
Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk
Bangalore District - 562 106.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Aravind B.Reddy, Adv.)
2
And:
Sri.Muniswamy Reddy
@ Sunka Reddy
Dead by his LRs'
1(a) Smt.Rajamma
D/o. late Muniswamy Reddy
@ Sunka Reddy
W/o. Muni Reddy
Aged about 54 years
Residing at: Samanahally Village
Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk
Bangalore District - 562 158.
1(b) Smt.Nagarathnamma
D/o. late Muniswamy Reddy
@ Sunka Reddy
W/o. N.Bhadra Reddy
Aged about 52 years
Residing at: Kittaganahalli Village
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk
Bangalore District - 562 107.
... Respondents
(By Sri K.Srinivasa, Adv.,)
These writ petitions are filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order at
Annexure-A dtd.13.2.2017 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge at Anekal in O.S.No.768/2008 in restoring the
abated suit which has abated on 17.12.2013 and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for orders this day,
the Court passed the following:
3
ORDER
The defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed these writ petitions against the order dated 13.2.2017 on IAs.6 to 8 made in O.S.No.768/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Anekal, allowing the applications and permitting the legal representatives of the plaintiff to come on record.
2. The respondent, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court filed O.S.No.768/2008, directing the defendants to execute rectification deed to the sale deed dated 26.9.1968 registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Anekal, by rectifying the survey number mentioned in the sale deed as 31/1 instead of 32/1 contending that the plaintiff has purchased the land bearing Sy.No.32/1 from one Krishna Reddy, S/o.Chikkarama Reddy, under a registered sale deed dated 26.9.1968, which was registered as document No.2112/1968-69 and the plaintiff was put in possession of the said land on the date of execution of 4 the sale deed and he has been in continuous possession of the same. It is further contended that though survey conveyed in favour of the plaintiff is Sy.No.32/1, by inadvertence in the sale deed dated 26.9.1968, it is shown as Sy.No.31/1. However, the plaintiff was put in possession of Sy.No.32/1 within the boundaries only. The mistake committed is not intentional one, but it is by inadvertence of the document writer etc. Therefore, he filed the present suit.
3. The defendants filed written statement denying the entire plaint averments and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. During the pendency of the original suit, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives filed IA Nos.6, 7 and 8 to come on record. The trial Court has allowed the said IAs. and permitted the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff to come on record. Hence, these writ petitions are filed.
5
5. Sri.Aravind B.Reddy, learned Counsel for the defendants/petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing IAs.6 to 8 without assigning any single reason is erroneous and contrary to the materials on record. He further contended that when the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff have not assigned any reason to condone the delay of more than 2 ½ years in filing the application to come on record, the trial Court ought to have considered the applications and objections and ought to have assigned reasons for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and bringing his legal representatives on record. Absolutely, no reasons are assigned in the impugned order. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned orders passed by the trial Court.
6. Per contra, Sri.K.Srinivasa, learned Counsel for respondents has sought to justify the impugned orders and unable to justify the fact that the trial Court has not assigned any reasons to allow IAs' except 6 stating that in order to adjudicate the real dispute between the parties it is necessary to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis, it is undisputed fact that the plaintiff filed the suit, directing the defendants to execute rectification deed to the sale deed dated 26.9.1968 by rectifying the Survey numbers mentioned in the sale deed as 31/1 instead of 32/1. The same is denied by the defendants by filing written statement. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the proceedings original plaintiff died, his legal representatives have filed the applications. There was delay of more than 2½ years in filing the Legal Representatives application. IA No.6 has been filed under Order 22 Rule 3 r/w. Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record; IA No.7 has been filed under Order 22 Rule 9 r/w. Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the abatement and IA No.8 has been filed under Section 5 of 7 the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the LR application. Assigning the detailed reasons in the said applications, the said applications were resisted by the defendants by filing common objections.
8. The trial Court without considering the reasons in the applications and objections, without assigning any reasons, in one line order allowed IA Nos.6 to 8 and permitted to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record, which is erroneous and contrary to the materials on record. When the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff have filed three applications furnishing full details and the same was objected by the other side, the trial Court ought to have considered the IAs' and objections and pass reasoned order, since the dispute between the parties is in respect of immovable property and the same has not been done in the present case.
9. For the reasons stated above, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 13.2.2017 8 passed on IAs.6 to 8 made in O.S.No.768/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Anekal, is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication of IA Nos.6 to 8. The trial Court is directed to consider IA Nos.6 to 8 and objections and pass reasoned orders in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA