Karnataka High Court
Mr Antony Paul vs Sri C Muniraju on 19 April, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.30397 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR.ANTONY PAUL
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O MR.C.J.POUL.
2. MR.PAUL ANTONY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O MR.ANTONY PAUL
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.C-32
SHOOBA IVORY, ST.JOHN'S ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 042.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.KIRAN.J, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.C.MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE.CHIKKA PULLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.19/1
KARIYAPPA BUILDING
RAMAKRISHAN STORE
MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET
6TH CROSS, VASANTHANAGARA
BANGALORE - 560052.
2
2. SRI.H.C.JAYARAM
S/O LATE.CHIKKA PULLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT HORAMAVU VILLAGE
K.R.PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE - 560043.
3. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE.CHIKKA PULLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
RESIDING AT HORAMAVU
AGRA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560043.
4. SRI.H.SRINIVAS
S/O LATE.CHIKKA PULLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.17
LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA
1ST CROSS, ANNAYAPPA GARDEN
JARAGANAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560073.
5. SRI.H.C.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE.CHIKKAPULLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT: 2ND CROSS, T C P LAYOUT
NEAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE
HORAMAVU-AGRA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560043.
6. SMT.BHRAMARA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
W/O LATE.GAJENDRA.
7. JAYACHIN .G
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O LATE.GAJENDRA.
3
8. PRAFUL.G
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O LATE.GAJENDRA.
RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8 ARE R/AT:
NO.16, 1ST CROSS
LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560026.
9. LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE.YELLAPPA.
10. SMT.VASANTH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O.PILLAPPA.
11. SMT.RENUKA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O LATE.HARISH.
12. PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE.YELLAPPA.
13. MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE.YELLAPPA.
14. HEMAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
W/O PURUSHOTHAM.
RESPONDENTS 9 TO 14 ARE R/AT:
NO.5, 11TH 'A' CROSS
3RD MAIN ROAD
SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560027.
4
15. SMT.CHANDRAMMA
W/O LATE.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT: DEVINAGARA
KANNURAMMA TEMPLE STREET
R M V POST
BANGALORE - 560094.
16. SMT.MUJEEBUNNNEESA
W/O SYED AYZA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.35, LAZAR ROAD
2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN
FRAZER TOWN
BANGALORE - 560005.
17. SMT.RESHMA SHERIFF
W/O SYED MANZUR AHMED
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.31
COCKBURN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560051.
18. PATEL HARILALA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE BHIMJI BHOLU
R/AT NO.196, VIJAYA BANK COLONY
HORAMAVU VILLAGE
BANGALORE - 560043.
19. PATEL BABULAL @ MAHENDRA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.196, VIJAYA BANK COLONY
HORAMAVU VILLAGE
BANGALORE - 560043.
20. PATEL JAYANTHILALA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
5
R/AT NO.196, VIJAYA BANK COLONY
HORAMAVU VILLAGE
BANGALORE - 560043.
21. PATEL PREMKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.196, VIJAYA BANK COLONY
HORAMAVU VILLAGE
BANGALORE - 560043.
22. SMT.RADHA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT SURVEY NO.26 OF
HORAMAVU VILLAGE
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
23. JACOB LAZARAUS CHELLI
FATHERS NAME NOTE KNOWN
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.26 OF
SARASWATHI ROAD
MARUTHISWVA NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560023.
24. M/S KILLIC NIXON & CO.LTD
BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI DARSH
TEJKUMAR RUIA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O TEJKUMAR
BALAKRISHNA RUIA
KILLIC ESTATE
BAJI PASALKAR MARG
CHANDIVALI, ANDERI (E)
MUMBAI - 400072.
25. JEEVARAJ
S/O AMARCHAND
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT NO.15 DODDAKATAPPA
6
ROAD CROSS, ULSOOR
BANGALORE - 560008.
26. SMT.KAMALABAI
W/O JEEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO.15 DODDAKATAPPA
ROAD CROSS, ULSOOR
BANGALORE - 560008.
27. ASHOKCHAND
S/O JEEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.15, DODDAKATAPPA ROAD
CROSS, ULSOOR
BANGALORE - 560008.
28. SMT.MANJUBAI
W/O ASHOKCHAND
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.15, DODDAKATAPPA ROAD
CROSS, ULSOOR
BANGALORE - 560008.
29. RAJESH KUMAR
S/O JEEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.84, 10TH STREET
ULSOOR
BANGALORE - 560008.
30. SMT.CHANDAN BALA
W/O RAJESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.84, 10TH STREET
ULSOOR
BANGALORE - 560008. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.AMARESH A.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 AND 3 TO 30 - DISPENSED WITH)
7
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Kiran.J, for petitioners has appeared through video conferencing.
Sri.Amaresh A.Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has appeared in person.
2. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:-
It is stated that the land bearing Sy.No.26 was earlier belonged to one M.Gopalappa, Muniyappa and Balappa who are the children of one Munipullappa. He sold the land to plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 and they later got partitioned in the year 1993. Item No.3 of the plaint 8 schedule property came to be allotted to the share of defendants 3 to 5 and they executed a power of attorney dated:21.01.1994 in favor of one B.N.Ramesh.
It is stated that the power of attorney holder formed sites in Sy.No.26 and he sold the schedule sites No.19 to 22 to one P.J.Wilson and his wife Shantha Wilson by two sale deeds dated:19.10.1994. The Mutation and Khata is also effected in the name of P.J.Wilson and his wife Shantha Wilson. It is said that P.J.Wilson bequeathed two sites in favor of his wife Shantha Wilson.
As things stood thus, during the year 2009 the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition against the defendants in O.S.No.3907/2009. It is also stated that the plaintiffs were aware of the sale deed executed in the year 1994.
Petitioners purchased sites No.19 to 22 from Shantha Wilson under sale deed dated:31.01.2011. It is 9 also contended that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
In the suit, petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.19/2016 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC for impleading. The plaintiffs filed objections to the application. The Trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated:26.10.2016.
Under these circumstances, the petitioners having left with no other of alternative and efficacious remedy has filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned Senior counsel Sri.Shashikiran Shetty, for petitioners and learned counsel Sri.Amaresh Angadi, for respondent No.2 have urged several contentions.
4. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of petitioners and respondent No.2 and perused the Writ papers with care.
10
5. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application?
The petitioners moved an application for impleading under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that they are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings since they purchased sites No.19 to 22 from one Shantha Wilson on 31.01.2011.
Suffice it to note that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
11It is significant to note that a person may be added as a party to a suit in the following two cases-
1. When he ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, and is not joined so; or
2. When, without his presence, the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided.
Necessary parties are those who ought to have joined and without whom no order can be passed effectively as their presence is necessary for the constitution of the suit itself, in other words, without whom no effective decree can be passed. Proper party is one without whom no effective order can be made, whose presence is necessary for a complete and final adjudication of the dispute.
Reverting to the facts of the case, the petitioners contended that they have purchased sites No.19 to 22 in Sy.No.26. The Trial Court in extenso referred to the material on record and held that they are neither 12 necessary nor proper parties. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application. Hence, the order does not require any interference by this Court.
6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN/VMB