K Prakash vs B R Shelvapillai on 2 December, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

K Prakash vs B R Shelvapillai on 2 December, 2008

Bench: B.S.Patil

WP 1245532006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT 

DATEg T313 THE 2N1? DAY OF'    _

BEFGRE

THE HOEWBLE MR.JUs'rk;;: .3-:;A.JSjivp§s;irfL.'  4'
wnrr PETITION 30.1.24-551 semv»-éP§_:_j_,  3
BETWEEN:   " V' I 1

SR1 PLPRAKASH, V _  5   1.

SfO SR1 K.CHANDRA8HEKAE~€ :)A.s,'   ;

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, -  1

R/A'1'NO.2558,IFLO{Z>R,  =_ v_ x

mm MAIN, RAJAJ!NA«G1§£RI1l;STAQ.E,   

E BLOCK, sUBRA%y¢Ar§T¥A.r~:A<3AR;, _  ' 

BANGALORE       HPETITIONER

(BY SR1 NAr:%§>A:§1'g=.£:<§1E:;;;VJ.;.;é:;3_?§.7.; 
AND: V  4' ' "

1, SRiB.R.SI~EELVAPI'LLAIA,  .
S/O LATE }37'."EANGA'SWAM'a'~--'EYENGAR,
1'%.GEi3 ABOUT ":"<1._'§E'ARs..
R/,_A"1?.N:Q.38, R.B,i';C{}_L.ONY,

.MHANANQNAGAR,

' 560 G24:

2" :3R;----.§sRIN:xi;a.s'1%?R2AsA1:2,
syg LA'I'.?E1 '£§,--I.<'ANGASWAMY EYE-NGAR,
£'1GEii.") ABOUT ":1 YEARS,
_, RfA'F NO;;38, R.B.E.C3OLONY,
' A1§IAND'1}EAGAR,
 BANGALORE --~ 559 024.

 ::;MT} B,R.suKAN¥a,
pgo LATE: RANGASWAMY IYENGAR,

  AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

R'f'AT NOA205/C, 1473 MAIN,
131' FLGCR, A BLOCK,
SUBRAMANYANAGAR,
BANGALORE ~ 560 021,



_U1

3}



 BANGALORE --- 550 cm.

wp 22455/2005
2

SR1 BRBALAKRISHNA,

S/O LATE RANGASWAMY IYENGAI33,
AGEX3 ABOUT 68 YEARS,

R/AT NQ1211, BALAJI NILAYA,

V CROSS, 2'?" MAEN,

J.P.NAGAR, 1'5"? PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 078'

SR} BRSAMPATH KUMAR,

S/C) LATE RANGASWAMY IYENGAR,   ._
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, :
NO2558, 11'"? MAIN,

El-BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,

II STAGE, SRINIVASA KRUPA,
BANGALORE ~-- 560 010.

SR} BRSHESHADRI,   _ 
S/O LATE RANGASWAM1' __1Y-£'.NGAR, V  ..
AGED ABOUT 54 mans,  ~ - *  1
N<3.255a, mm MAIN, - V g
E--BLOCK, RAJAJ£NAGAE{',.""  . 

II STAGE, SR1NIVA$A'.KRE3PA,  V  ~
BM-I<3AL<)RE¢i36o;;:«'10._   _  ' 

Sm". B;.R.SHAi*££'HA,  _  _

13 /0 iA'T[_'E E3.'RAN'G§xSVe'AF\¥iEf F3'7E§'5C§AR,
AGED ABOUT 61.YE;A'r32s,'   
RIAT 140.408, -.:.7'rﬁ-c:I20':3s,"*'----  '

am MAIN, BE-ML'vE.AY'-QUE', ~~

18¢ s*_m«::E, BAS£\VE'SHWARANAGAR',

 V.  BA§§iE§AL§JRE} - 5cso'vQ.fz_=_;1,« .

V »S1M--*£'_, S!.~I§"L£%.'7!;éOHAN,
2.910 mTL:VB;mNc;AswAMY 1*; ENGAR,

Ac:§»}3:1;:;« Aacmf 5;3'YEAR'S,

1:2/3-1:' NO._11'«%;,_6TH MAIN,

cam CROSS, -JAYANAGAR,

..F:'E3SPC>NDEN'I'S

  (;r3"*:»' SR1" <3.B;'NaND1sH GOVJDA ma R.B.SADASHI\?'APPA,
"5{3V;£%'jQR m*1'<> 8}

T THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 227 OF'

 CONSTITUTION 0}? {Nam PR-MING TO QUASH THE omm
DATED 51.6.2066 PASSED 13? IN Cs.S.NO.15OS5;'2()06 )<::><:v:1§ ADDL.

CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH NC),2§}, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE,



WP 12455['_>,OO6
3

REJECTING LA. UNDER ORDER I RULE 20(2), R/W SECTION 35}
OF' CODE GP' CIVIL PROCEBURE2, 1908, F'Ii.E;D BY THE PETITIONER
VIDE ANX-C} 85 ETC. .

THIS PETITEON COMING ON FOR PRELEMINARY HEA"R:E"Pi¢dG~~.'B'

GROUP, THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE; FOLLOWiN(3;,.__ 4' »  ' ~   V.

ORDER

1. Challenge in this writ petitiozi "";is'~:q '-{lisp 05.06.2006 passed by the iearneé Adudi, civ;1&,. Judge, Bangalore, Itajecting tlieﬁi'"'.:1pp1i»i:a;tic$n,[ theiii petitionar unaier QIY1€Z"i" I iii":.{}{2) a <i:f ii:

o.s.No.15z305/2006.

2. Petitioner tlgé:~é1ppiiéé;tiQi§;:§$éeking 3:9 come on I'€COI'Ci as an suit ﬁlﬁd by the 13' respondeiizéz 31a*:rt:i1V1iﬁ*>:i*--. sepaxate p0ss€:s$ioI1 cf the suit scheduléi4propéf?.iés,i 'case of the petitioner beforvs the 4__.Vs;:ou1"t is tl1ér§:..11:€ is iihe purchaser under an agmﬁment of 'A*.$ai1Ar:' £::i§{;ecgi:i?:d.:ii1..V13is favour by one B.R,Sa,mpath Kumar, 5":

mépéhﬁéﬁi "who is the 4451* defendant before the tria! V _C9urti""*-The: B.R.Sampath Kumar is sue of the members of ;§C?'iI3..t féiliiily. Bases'; an the agreement of sale, the petitioner iggzséﬁz iiistituted a suit in O.S.N0.1598?/2004 seeking speciﬁc ': 13»zrf§rma_nce cf the agreement. It was his further case that he put in possession of the ﬁrst £1901" of the §3I'f:3}3.iS6S bagging WP 1245522906 4 I\I0.2448 present I1<:s.2558/'?6. Since this property was one of the iteme in the suit schedule in which partition was egught, the petitioner Wanted to came on record to safe,9;:Iat1}<;1._t'§"*1_is interest and to bring to the ximtice of the court ~ that Sampath Kumar had entered with _--i: K "

below has dismissed this £:1pp1iCati0I1 'hOlt:Ii11$ at "E37133" partition persons who are entitled 'iega elteere in ; those who are claiming Imder -.perse-1;e_:iaze tithe only necessary parties and pfe"t_iti£§:1ei"=. is only a mere agreement holder was not aV«neeesse:3}_ petty * 3, It .,_g'tj,..J:t fiiieﬁv b}--%wtt1e petitioner herein seeking e;::eeiﬁCVﬁe3feﬁ11:ef:ee'vhae-'been decreed 03:1 08.01.2007 and the Iintatter ieV"r1<:§vé pettectieg in RFA Ne.396/200?. The _ petiﬁenger' has aleottirgeél another impertaxlt g1f'O1113.Ci in the petition that by a registered partition deed dated-t'__ the joint family pmperties have been _pa1ﬁtie.ned_"a;zef;' the said aspect has not been brought to the H H " iv ' ' --ﬁ£)ticeL of the court below.

'»--Learned Cetmsel appearing for the petitioner contends 'th;-_3.t§ the petitjener is a necessary and preper party to the "proceedings as his interests are involved and any decree to be we 2245512006 5 passed will certainly' aﬁect him. He further submits that, new that a decree is obtained by the petiti0net" 7.iI1 o.s.No.1398'7/2004, the petitioner is a necessary' proceedings.

53. Counsel appearing for the respo1id.ez:'ts*~1{j1aein7g the judgment rendered by CGIEIT: it: oft' PARVATI:?IAMMa.B.N. 62:» 0153333 ye"-.3.zexAéAe3g;A & OTHERS submits that the 'pe*iiti:3t_1e12f_'§e a Izecessaxy nor proper party t0 the pmceectir:.g3_.::w. '

6. Having (V3<3't;:.r:x'€3e1V_f0r the parties and on careful record; I ﬁnd that the peﬁtionef Rha:'=3= in O.S.N0.1598'?/ 2004 on O8.01.2{){)_? w hexe'un.derA"oIie' 0f the suit echeduie properties ' 1fefeITeti."to:/_}2eI'e7Z;1 abt>x?€"is'VdiIected to be sald in his favour. It is petiﬁoner has urged a gmund stating that

-- VV there*x;_%é.s a _pstfLf'tEen effected through a registered partition deed tiateé 14.~~12;;T2€}GO and that if the said fact is not brought to the the court and rm material in this regard is placed .___"b'efG 1:e the court, then it wit} cause serieus prejudice and injury "to his interest.

% WP 124 53/2006 3'. The approach adopted 1:13; the court below in rejecting the request of the petitioner is not tenable. The irztereste' the petitioner is very much involved as he has obtai11e3.:_1_' 'ci.eeree from the court of comoetent jurisdjcﬁon. He is to the notice of the court these factg-"a"§:1t1«;aro.tec_t Hence, it is just and necessary that the'.pe":i t£onef' record as additional defendant to proeet2<:1_iI1ge1.

8. The judgment I'€1i€d: OIi Cotioeel for the respondent has no bearing gfiesent case. In the said ease, theg to impiead the subsequezlt the piaint. In such ciI'c1:mstaLf1ces,« -'Without amendilig the plaint, the eoo1c3_ ﬁes Subsequent purchaser, '€*.._ above Ej1'r*3L,:11sta,13.<3es, in my eonsidemel view, the 'W.AI'i'£ .}:V3etitio:;V{1ese:z5)'es to be alloweci. Hence, I pass the following 9rde:'::--"7 ORDER

- The writ petition is allowed;

(ii) The impugned order is set aside;

£6/.

KB:

(iii)

(iv) WP 12455/2006 7 Th: application filed by petitiener seeking ta implead himself as an additisnal defendant is aliewedg Petitiener is permitted to come: on _ defendant. A Z

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court