Karnataka High Court
Rangaswamaiah vs Smt Rathnamma on 22 January, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.33603 OF 2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. RANGASWAMAIAH
S/O. CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
2. SRI CHIKKANNA
S/O. GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
MUDIGERE VILLAGE
BELLAVI HOBLI-572153
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V. B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O. NARASIHMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT BEARANAKALLU VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI-572153
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2
2. SMT. MANGALAMMA
W/O. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE
BELLAVI HOBLI-572153
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3. SRI SHIVAPPA
S/O. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
4. SRI PARAMESH
S/O. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE
BELLAVI HOBLI-572153
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
5. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT PERAMANAHALLI
BELLAVI HOBLI-572153
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.M.ANANDA, ADV. FOR R-2, 4 & 5;
SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADV. FOR R-3 AND
R-1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 22-1-2014)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17-7-2013
PASSED ON I.A. IN O.S.NO.639/2010 PASSED BY THE
3
COURT OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-IV,
AT TUMKUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENT
NO.3 (DEFENDANT NO.2) FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE
10 (6) OF C.P.C. VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 17-7-2013, passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.639/2010 on I.A. under Order I Rule 10(6) of C.P.C vide Annexure-E.
2. By the impugned order vide Annexure-E, the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by respondent No.3 to transpose him as second plaintiff.
3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
4
4. The briefly stated the facts are:
Respondent No. 1 has filed suit in O.S.No.639/2010 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the respondent No. 3 has filed application to transpose him as second plaintiff. The Trial Court by its order dated 17-7-2013 has allowed the application. Therefore, this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the father of the respondent No. 3 has sold the property and it was challenged and the suit has been dismissed and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the application and transposing respondent No.3 as second plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
6. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the impugned order does 5 not call for interference. He also submitted that the suit is for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has colluded with the petitioners and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in allowing the application and transposing the respondent No.3 as second plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the petitioners have alienated the suit schedule property and the writ petition has become infructuous.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, for the reason that the petitioners have sold the property and they have 6 no substituting interest in the property. Secondly, it is alleged that the plaintiff has colluded with the petitioners. The suit is for partition. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in allowing the application and transposing the respondent No.3 as second plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in the writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk