Karnataka High Court
Sri Aravamudan @ Kannan vs Sri K V Vardarajan on 26 June, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:22027
WP No. 10161 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.10161 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI ARAVAMUDAN @ KANNAN
S/O LATE VEDANTHA IYENGAR,
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
1(A) MRS. JAMBU KANNAN
W/O LATE K.V. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,
1(B) MR. DASHARATHI K.V
S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT 'VEDANT' NO.601,
15TH CROSS, NORTH SERVICES ROAD,
J.P NAGAR, 1ST PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078.
Digitally 1(C) MRS. SHEELA SRIPATHI @ SHELLA SRIPATHI,
signed by W/O LATE SRIPATHI K.V.
VANDANA
S AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Location:
High Court 1(D) MR.K.V.SUDARSHAN,
of
Karnataka S/O LATE SRIPATHI K.V.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
1(E) MS. K.V.SRINIDHI
D/O LATE SRIPATHI K.V.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
PETITIONER NOS.1, 3 TO 5 ARE
R/AT FLAT NO. 402, SRI SAILAM APARTMENT,
NO.59, 4TH MAIN ROAD, GAVIPURAM EXTENSION,
BANGALORE-560 019.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:22027
WP No. 10161 of 2023
1(F) MRS. SHRUTHI RANJANI K.V.
D/O LATE SRIPATI K.V.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 60, EDGEDALE PLAINS,
RIVER ISLES 08-19, PUNGGOL-828 729,
SINGAPORE, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER,
MRS. SHEELA SRIPATHI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B. K. SAMPATH KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SURAJ SAMPATH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI K V VARDARAJAN
S/O LATE VEDANTHA IYENGAR,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1. MR.K.V.ANJEE,
S/O LATE K.V. VARDARAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.30, 9TH MAIN,
MALLESHPALYA, NEAR HONDA SHOWROOM,
BANGALORE NORTH, NEW THIPPASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560 075.
2. MR.K.V.BALAJI
S/O LATE K.V. VARDARAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.47/3, 5TH MAIN,
12TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560 027.
3. MR.K.V.RAGHUPATHI,
S/O LATE K.V. VARDARAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NO.59, SRI SAILAM, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
GAVIPURAM EXT., BANGALORE-19.
4. MRS. RANGALAKSHMI SRINIVASAN,
D/O LATE K.V. VARDARAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.1581/A, 25TH CROSS, 30TH MAIN,
DEVEGOWDA PETROL BUNK,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:22027
WP No. 10161 of 2023
BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE,
BIDARAHALLI, BANGALORE-70.
5. MR.K.V.SAMPATH KUMARAN,
S/O LATE VEDANTH IYENGAR,
AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS,
R/AT C/O KARNATAKA ENTERPRISES,
NO.26, DVG ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560 004.
6. MR.R.S.SRINIVASAN
S/O MR. R.S. SEETHARAMAIAH SETTY,
PARTNER, M/S. ASHOKA INDUSTRIES,
R/A NO.98, 98/1, SY.NO. 18/3,
KALENA AGRAHARA, BEGUR HOBLI,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VAIBHAV M. IYENGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4;
SRI. VIVEK S REDDY., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K. N. SUBBA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R6;
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.06.2023
NOTICE TO R1, R2 & R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 11/12.04.23 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN O.S.
NO. 536/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.536/2011 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby the said application filed by respondent No.6 - impleading -4- NC: 2023:KHC:22027 WP No. 10161 of 2023 applicant seeking impleadment in the suit as additional defendant No.2 was allowed by the trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that respondent Nos.1 to 5 - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner - legal representatives of defendant No.1 for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties comprising of three items of the properties.
4. In the said suit, respondent No.6 - impleading applicant filed the instant application seeking impleadment on the ground that an earlier suit filed for declaration and injunction filed by the original defendant No.1 in respect of 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.19/1 which is described as item No.3 came to be dismissed by the trial Court and an appeal in RFA No.1815/2017 is pending before this Court. It was contended that under these circumstances, the impleading applicant is both proper and necessary party to the present suit.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:22027 WP No. 10161 of 2023
5. The said application having been opposed by both the plaintiff as well as petitioner Nos.1(c) and 1(d) herein, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing application - I.A.No.7 on the ground that the impleading applicant is both proper and necessary party to the suit. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the present parties to the suit are family members and the impleading applicant is a third party - non-family member, who claims and alleges independent right, title and possession over Sy.No.19/1, which is described as item No.3 of the suit schedule property. It is also relevant to state that in respect of 18 guntas of the suit item No.3, a separate suit was filed by the petitioners against the impleading applicant for declaration, title and possession and the said suit having been dismissed, RFA No.1815/2017 has been preferred by the petitioners, which is pending adjudication before this Court. Under these circumstances, since the aforesaid RFA No.1815/2017 is already pending before this Court between the petitioners and the impleading applicant coupled with the -6- NC: 2023:KHC:22027 WP No. 10161 of 2023 undisputed fact that the impleading applicant is not a family member, who contends that the said property does not belong to the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants, which is the subject matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing I.A.No.3 without assigning any reasons is a clear unreasoned, non-speaking, laconic and cryptic order, which does not indicate as to how the impleading applicant was both a proper and necessary party to the suit.
7. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the impleading applicant deserves to be dismissed by issuing certain directions in this regard.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 11.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.536/2011 on the file of the I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.7 stands dismissed. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:22027 WP No. 10161 of 2023
(iii) It is however made clear that any compromise / settlement / withdrawal of the suit or any judgment, decree, order, etc., passed in O.S.No.536/2011 will not be binding upon the impleading applicant - respondent No.6 nor will it affect or cause prejudice to his rights or contentions in the subject matter of O.S.No.536/2011 or in the pending RFA No.1815/2017 and all rival contentions are kept open. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the impleading applicant - respondent No.6 to file application for impleading after disposal of RFA No.1815/2017.
(iv) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate preferably on or before 21.12.2023.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV