Karnataka High Court
Mr A R Devaraj vs Mr A R Raman on 1 July, 2013
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.34165 OF 2011(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. Mr.A.R.Devaraj
Aged about 62 years
S/o late A.J.Rajavelu
Presently residing at
No.43, 5th Cross,
Someshwarapura Layout,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008.
2. Mrs.R.Indrani
Aged about 70 years
Daughter of late A.J.Rajavelu,
Presently residing at
No.43, 5th Cross,
Someshwarapura Layout,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008. ...PETITIONERS
(By M/s.Rego & Rego, Advocates)
2
AND:
1. Mr.A.R.Raman
Aged about 74 years
s/o late A.J.Rajavelu
Presently residing at
No.2, Aishwarya Nilayam,
Nandavanam "B" Street,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008.
2. Mr.A.R.Sukumaran
Aged about 65 years
S/o late A.J.Rajavelu
Presently residing at
No.13/1, Anjaneya Koil Street,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008.
3. Mr.A.R.Chandrashekar
Aged about 64 years
S/o late A.L.Rajavelu
Presently residing at
No.1152, 1st Cross,
HAL 3rd Stage,
New Thippasandra Layout,
Bangalore - 560 075.
4. Mrs.Kantha Kupanna
Aged about 60 years
W/o late A.R.Kuppanna
Presently residing at
No.68, Ashram Road,
Jayalakshmipuram,
Mysore - 570 012.
5. Mrs.Shanthi Rajashekaran
Aged about 67 years
3
D/o late A.J.Rajavelu
Presently residing at
Old No.86, South Jagannathnagar,
2nd Main Road, Villivakkam,
Chennai - 600 049.
6. Mrs.Malini Chandrashekar
Aged about 51 years
D/o late A.J.Rajavelu
Formerly residing at
No.12, Balaji Residency
2nd Floor, 25 Feet Road,
Saraswathipuram, Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 037.
7. Mithila Padmanaban
Aged about 48 years
D/o late A.J.Rajavelu
Presently residing at
No.2, Aishwarya Nilayam,
Nandavanam "B" Street,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008.
8. Mrs.Geetha Surender
Aged about 57 years
W/o R.Surender and
D/o late A.J.Rajavelu
Last Known place of address being
No.16, Cambridge Road,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008.
9. Mrs.Anitha
Aged about 40 years
D/o late A.R.Kuppanna
No.68, Ashram Road,
Jayalakshmipuram,
4
Mysore - 570 012.
10. Mr.A.K.Kumar
Aged about 30 years
S/o late A.R.Kuppanna
No.68, Ashram Road,
Jayalakshmipuram,
Mysore - 570 012. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri A.J.N.Gupta, Advocate for R2 & R3
Sri K.Narayan & Sri Anand Choudhary, Advocates for R6
R1, R4, R5, R7, R8, R9 & R10-Served)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the common
order dated 1.8.2011 passed on I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.41/07
on the file of XXXVIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore City,
vide Annexure-H hereto in so far as relates to I.A.No.11
only and direct the transposition of R5, R6 and R7 as
plaintiffs 5, 6 and 7 in the aforesaid suit to the status of
defendants 2, 3 and 4 granting simultaneously to the
petitioners their costs, counsels' fee.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing
in 'B' group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition and separate possession. During the pendency of the suit defendant No.1 & 5 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(6) of CPC seeking to transpose defendants 2 to 4 as 5 plaintiffs 5 to 7. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the same. Hence, the present Petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. That the pleadings of defendants 2 to 4 would show that they are sailing along with plaintiffs 1 to 4. Therefore they require an opportunity to cross-examine them. Therefore defendants 2 to 4 be transposed as plaintiffs 5 to 7.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents defends the impugned order.
4. On hearing the learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no error that calls for interference. The suit is one for partition. In law every one of the parties are deemed to be plaintiffs and shares of 6 each one of the plaintiffs, whether the plaintiff or the defendant would necessarily have to be determined by the Court in accordance with law. Whether the plaintiffs or the defendants therein have a legal right to claim a share in the suit schedule properties or to transpose as defendants to plaintiffs would be wholly inconsequential. Moreover it is submitted at the Bar that defendants 1 to 4 were not even parties in the original suit. Subsequently they were added as defendants 2 to 4. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsk/-