Sri R M Nagaraj vs B Lakshmamma D/O Late Sri Byrappa on 25 March, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri R M Nagaraj vs B Lakshmamma D/O Late Sri Byrappa on 25 March, 2009

Bench: B.S.Patil

IN ms HIGH (sonar on KAEINATAKA AT  -.

mrmn T!-I18 THE 25% may or mARcH.7§°09:.: V'   *

THE HGITBLE mR.JUsTii:n: :i;sJ.P:i'E'tAL--.  , " 

wan' PETITIOII no.1'2f$72_[gdGsfggr.V:T§cPtét""  

wan' PETITIo1¢"'re¢.-134g§2«5'!z'et)j_8 Vmgcrcx

1;. \\'.P. No.12572ié0os  j  

BETWEEN:

Sri. R.M.Nagaraj',";. V    
Sfo. Latei_Sri. G."B;VM1V1r;ikri$hnap;pa,
Age: 48 yeE'aI'S', V'  A   .
Resident of Ramach _  
Village,  Post, ' ' 

Bangalors. L . PEIITIODIER

 f ' my 3145;  Counsctl for
' ~ . _ S1'i.'@gam¢3:}:'1  Patil, Adv.)

  

 ' ~ .. « .  }.'.., Smt." Bﬁakshmamma,

 * D19. Date Sri. Byrappa and
 13. Krishnappa,
 Aged about 70 years,
[Residing at C] 0. K.L.Naraya:.1a,
 No.849, 5&1 Bmk, 129* Main,
31* Cross, H.M.'I'. Layout,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore - 569 097.



 73: v

Sri. J.Ravindra:aat]3,

S/0. Late Sn'. Hdayakzishna,
Aged about 45 years

Sri. J.Sha1*ath,

S/0. Late Sxi. Hdayalcrishna,
Aged about 39 yeam

Respondent No.2 and 3 are  'V

Residing at Jakkur Village, Bangalore North Taluigz ¢ Bangalore - 560 (364 L Smt. Munithayamma, D/0. Late and' W/o. Sri Aged abo1if'3'3__§5°c$:g--;;,' ' ~-- Residing at cm;

Jalahalli Past; --

Smt shmmm W/o Laté Ts:-1. _G§'E}.MnnﬂE;'ié.hnappa, Agg: Major' _ ' V 1, Si§4i:'i?a:1jaIr.v1;a sii£ce"tieéd by his Li?

A Rajanna, '' Q. Vvlbzitcﬂajanna, Aged abo'utV_4"1 years, Respodé.ents No.5 and 6 are " q ..R¢sidé11t of Ramachandrapuzam, Post, Bangalore.

Smt. Prabhavathi, .. JD/c,» Latte G.B.Munikrishnappa, Aga: Major "shuappa and Smt. Shobhavathi, 13/0 G. B.Munikrishnappa, Since Dead by her LRs,--

al Nanjappa S/0 Late Shobavathi, Age: Major

b) Madasudan S] 0 Late Shobavathi, Age: Major (7) Mithun S/0 Late Shobavatftm... _ ' Age: Major.-.«& I "

Smt. Pus;hj:>:3'vati:.i*,I'_V V * D/0. Late B.-M ap§a 313.6 W] 0., E';B._S}Ii:jVa§i1ﬂﬂk~9I;'-_ "

% Respondents 539.?'-,9 "1.I*€s of R-8(a) to (C) are residing at Bani} apga' Layout, iI11_ri.Ma1'n 'Ro_ad,v.MuthyaIamma Nagar, Ga:1{u1L'Post, Bémgalon: -- 560 054. Szr_;::t.

~. W._i_o. 'ﬁlﬁﬁaigiachandrappa, Age: Majoij, ' 'Rio. Ambha Bhavani Nilaya, No.392; 951 Crass, 314 Block, AA I[i_,M.T".' Layout, Vidyaranyapura, "ii .VI_i3a':¢A3ga1ort: -- 569 097'. Smt. Kalavathi, " D/0. Late G.B.Muni1<;t'ish;:xappa and W/0. P.S:t:inivas, Age: Major, residing at In WZP. No.13-456/2008 :

BETWEEN:

Smt. Bharathi Rajanna, W] :3. Late Rajarma, Aged about 41 years, Resident of Raznacha11drapuram,.7 Villagc, Jalahaiii Post, Bangalore. ﬁi L' b " ';;. tPE5TI9i:1ousR (By Vivek S.Reddy, Adv.) AND:

Smt. D/0. Late W/o. Kﬁshaappag,' ', ' Aged a120ut_'?'(7* yeéx'3::*.; " Residing at Cfss.

N<>.849., 5&1 Block' -v 3rd Cros's,_ 1>:,M.'1:_I,ayoua;,___ Vidyaxanyapura, ' _ ' Bangaiore --'Vf:I6O'(}'97. *

- Sri".= «V ~ Sfrrg. Late *~ I~§.Jayakrishna,

-._ Ag.cd*a1§-3:11 45_y:::a1's S] 0". Sri. Hdayalirishna, Aged abéut 39 years L: Réﬁﬁondent No.2 and 3 are TRe"sidi11g at Jakkur Village, Bangalore North '§'a1uk, " 'Bangalore -~ 560 064.

Smt. Munithayamma, 31') /0. Late Sri. Byrappa and W/o. Sri. M.Krish11aswa.tny, Aged about 83 years, Residing at (3/0. M.§{.Prak.-ash, Ramachandm Puram, Jalahaili Post, Bangalore.

Smt. Sharadamma, W/o Late Sri. G.B.Mun.ikxi$1;Lr1appa;" ._ Age: Major "

Resident of Ramachandrapurém," Jaiahalli Post, Bangaloxta.

Smt. Prabhavathi, " _ . ' I)/0 Late G.B.Rri':xni1(1tié3:i11z2p;1:¢i,A.¢.VV'%.._ Age: Major "

Smt.Sho'i1ha_v$st1ii,"'--. , "

D/0 3.»?-M1¥ﬁikFi.ShHaF9é; "

Sincc' Deadhy l1ég"LRS~,.- " V

a) Naiijappa .

S] 0 Late: ShOba*ita£j:1i;---- Age: Major V' ' "

« ..... .. v V " S['0jLa_tc_Shobavathi, ' V. = Agsvé: 'Majdr " R __ S] 9' Late Shobavatlbi, Agéz .V Major AA Sm; Pushpavathi, " "£119. Late C}.B.Mun_ikrishnappa and "ZW/cs. B.R.S11ivashankar, __7Ag<=.:: Major Respondents No.7, 9 and LRS of R-8(a) tca ((3) are residing at Bandappa Layout,

- -

3"' defendant started enjoying the pmiaerties which We1e___givez1 to him by his father in the said partition. It i3' "

contended that the plaintiﬁs, defendants-1, 10 . became the members of the bf d"

G.B.Munikn'shnappa and they had noiézfighlts belonging to late G.B.Muni§(risl1§1a'ppa.V--' favour of 12*?' defendant of the written statem6I_1,t. V" pxdesession of the properties had 1_i2;'~; defendant.

5. 11 Wiittﬂil Statement 0131 O9.08.199vi6.. eontended that then: was no joint family iﬁdeﬁiamﬁced ceﬁtended by the plaintiffs and the ~e}z;esti(§:i.o;f_their in different places on account of not arise. T hey further asserted that the V to 11 were not living as members of the joiztt famK1'lj? that they were not enjoying any praperties ;j0i11§_.faV3V:§.iIy properties. They urged that the piaintiﬁéz and '£0 11 went living separately having their own T and they had no connection with the family czf late dd or (}.B.Munikrishnappa for the past severe} years. in bb in favour of the 1233 defendant. She wanted to add liable to be partitioned was false and untenable. It is further stated in yara-'7 of the written statement that (1t:f'f2:B.{','t¢'-,tIV1V:'i'.$'.*.F;',:

10 were provided well and were married of long back V. the life ﬁme of G.B.Mu11ikrish}1appa Le that they had no rights over the A A V t

6. When the suit was abthe '§2t"uv"e1fess~e:§e1n1ij§ation of the plaintiff, the present a;)"t$}i(:_é1tiee13.i'eee1tttt;g'_':.%ﬁb;endment of the written statement_ {gee no.9. She Wanted the statement and to atid additionaili ae ;ta1'a3+7;A to 7G and also to add certain otttet the schedule to the Written statement. Bj;._ t}3..e emendment the 931 defendant S.§::f1ight.. 'e(311te11¢;1V';};,'<1';;&3r;p:::tanC€, that there was no partition V. of his ancestral properties as weﬁ properties amongst his sons and assertions made in this regard by the 3"' W not correct. She further contended that to II} had got share in the suit schedule Vt wpI*e;;2e}r'£ies including the pmpexties dispoeeci of by the 3'-"5 and 4111 .....3a¢§.....

a relief by way of a prayer for ascertaining ané 211lotﬁV:V1gi"i:-Ker share in the schedule properties and for giving M possession of her share in the suit schedule --«. sought to pay Court fee of Rs.200_/ - (1) Karnataka Court Fees arid Ac_f_',: sand sough£ for aiiotment of lxer' sought to inciude as many as froperties in the scheduie to the properties sold in favour of _ AV

7. in the application, she eon'£endedi'...At_1:aé: vvqilléisfepresentation to her by. defendantséi 4 that they wouid give her, 4_h.er s~hare joiivtnt family properties, once the case of 'dismissed. Believiag the Iepresentation maée by defendants--3 and 4 she signed the V VX&*1itten""";:tate1i1'cz'it on 09.08.1996 without reading the eonterzts " the same in detail. She fL1r1:her oonteudeé that '_vévl_ie:je;§.';e read the written; statement and examined ii, she was wsiioeiﬁed and surprised {'0 know the contents thereof Whexein 3;:

""'u'7Vas maiie clear that defendants-S to 11 were not entitled for jg/f claim her share in the joint family properties, i'£) * mulﬁpiicity of pmeeedings, could be 1:¢;¥ share in the joint family properties in

9. Learned Senior Counsel s.:ie41s.P.'ex;g:::ekareVag:1§¢a1ing':

the petitioner has placed seﬁereie -hﬁleeieiogrxs to contend that 9"' éefendaﬁt~~.. :5 have a separate written Statement; the admissions made~ gthe joint written statement ﬁieé' He has further eontendeci eeﬁiéﬁeeceé ihe Court was not right and 93* defendant to take up euch a defenee"~v§*hic3i -is contrary to the stand taken by 'izer xvri§£en....statemeut ﬁleé as back as in the year 'He cg-ﬁ¥e11«és..:hat the bar of Iinﬁtaﬁon for taking up such a plea: .$eé:1<:iV;1§.'--:{3;1VzA*¥;i1Vt'ion after such a iapse of time operates. appearing for resyondents ~--~ 7, 9 10, 11 55 12 ieiippoﬂed the contentions urged by counsel for the ,, Legaii repzesentaﬁves of Respondents No.8, 8(a) to (e) adopted the arguments of elefendant 120.11. Leazned ' «.12. .'C'¢ff£i1nse1"v%;::A;l::)car§'11g for the plaiaﬁﬁs Sri Ashok Patil silbxnits as defezldants-3 and 4 Wanted to settle the claim, ﬁ. 't:§x:e"was ﬁled by the plainﬁﬂé. informing the Court that they eettied the disputes out of court. At that stage realising £116 __ 33 ,_ counsel have contended that the amendment lacked bonaﬁdes and such permission to wriggle out of the admissiozge granted will defeat the ends ofjustiee. I1. Counsel for the petia'o:§:eie---._ respendents have placed reliance o1:_1__ﬂ:1e_tb1}oWi£1g jﬁc_1g11ients,--

e) mnmm pm "smog do ornms {A.I.R. I996 s.c. 23,53} :2) nURa4r.i2A;$AD:""'1b*s.§';L.§.a3.45zf 65 omrms (4.11: i93g,e.rae2¢ 319; V.

iii) av; orrmns vs. swam-

xz;s:JAt?<2;;3;m::4'sHe'r;.4.s.n 2;; ar. orxmzs (2007 5.1.3. S;C..I_}Y"j513)"fiA: " '

iv) Hﬁzxazai; -~ MAL AND OTHERS (199s(1) s_.t:..¢;. 2:#g)"<.

v) V. _V UNI£'1r.I_b1?.x"rmi;a 'V5. PRAMDD GUPTA (zmw) B? was 2 AND omens 12995 (12; s.c.c. P-1 mm 134)} Awmm? or INDIA LTD. 179. UNION or _ arzmzs g4.:.1z. 2006 s.c. 3229 (Para-34)} "ter design, the 9*' tsiefenciant ﬁled the appiication seeking ...23__ motives due to escalation of land values in the a1r:Va.;eT "ei.3;1 paragraph 7 of the Written statement, it is stated as u:1{ie1fj:.._ ' "

"Further it is submitted that defgndanas-5~ e . - herein were provided we?! and were '1-of back and during the lifetime of it "

was made clear to {hem fhai »haVve 'o t}ver the suit pre;§é~mfes';" " 'V' fate G.B.Mum'1m:«shnappa aiuhgng"' 'had made proper divisior.- V of made 'fiat: V the 'p!:0per1y of his share V' 'E , VI2'§,4' é-temﬁng neoessaiy V' t 1 '

14. It is~,V1..,;'uﬁhe1; "said paragraph about the dispose} of the to the share of defendants v'.N.Q.3 in favoﬁ'r--.ef 1293* defendant and as such it was eo;1ie§1d,e§i eiaim of the plaintiff' that the suit schedllle pmgiefties family pmpertiee, liable for partition as V eiaimecfby il::aen'1"§&'as false and untenable. V .. AA By._§he"'pmposed amenciment, the 9&1 defendant intenés to ndw e§iﬂ;Aend that all these aseerfions wezt false and she never iizu " d to make such avexments in the Written statement, but _25...

it will have a serious repercussion on the rights of the other defendants. What is worst in the present case it"

written statement ﬁled was a co3::1£31on_W:§it*t«:n'1' atafte1t;eiit_ wherein a common stand was taken S€ﬁi'i"3.g."{1p V This admission made is sought to of 12 years. V V 'A V'

19. Reliance placed by for the respondent, Szi.Asho.A§.VL:V}'at:i.i::'__ 9339;' of the Division Bench of this 'Na:uqppa &. Others (I.L.R. to him. In the above mentioned ease: a suit for partition wanted the suit to be as settled out of court, e.§iou1't'§'obsez1red Vdpazagmph 16{iv) as under, ' ;.V""(iv,IT no defendant has sought the refief of possession, tilt then, the Court z':1.v~c2;;;g:é:o;2riaze oases permit any defendant who ﬁles application in that behalf to get himsezr " ;.. 'Azrartsposed as plaintiff and claim partition and ' Ksé;';:;trr;z£e possession by paying necessary Court Fee M mniinue the suit. Refusal to grant such pemrzission shouid be for valid reasons to be assigned Q. Jé;zI-ze Court, * viewed of the conduct of the 991 1_eiefeneiVéi.*1t she signed the written statement V V V ' be 'T %I'~e:..A1:.as {'0 be stated here that although the allegations of __ '§*a1:ia;1 and misrepresentation are made by the 9th defendant ' respondents 3 and 4 herein it cannot be gone into here. The Court beiow has also rightly not expressed anything with the written statement that there was no grievance 303,5 A' and that; those sales were effected out of the Z had faiien to the shares of defendants

22. To permit such an ameniiﬁéent .nt'- stage to set at naught these Véeeergone in permitting a pany to '4&:r5n.fe'a1gi'iCtoIy stand and will seriously ptejndicg.~i1«;;et;rfieeafn1y".f};e of the other of this case, the emliest point of time, the natune tnat is now sought to be made and 'the. "Jt11e maiter is pending, if same, the amendment sought for 5!?

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court