Karnataka High Court
Sri Padmarajaiah S N vs S R Adhirajaiah, 84 Years on 17 October, 2012
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WP NOS. 19877-19878 OF 2010(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1 SRI PADMARAJAIAH S N,
70 YEARS,
S/O LATE S.R.NAGANNA
NO.17/1, EIGHT CROSS
C BLOCK MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 023
2 VRUSHABARAJU, 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE S R NAGANNA
441, KHB COLONY, SECOND STAGE,
IV MAIN, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
BANGALORE 79
3 SRI JAWALANNA S N, 52 YEARS,
S/O S R NAGANNA, 242,
THIRD CROSS, C T BED
THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BANGALORE 28
4 JAYAPRAKASH, 50 YEARS,
S N S/O S R NAGANNA
66, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS
B M LAYOUT, VITTAL NAGAR
CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE 26
... PETITIONERS
2
(BY SHRI. L SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1 S R ADHIRAJAIAH, 84 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMASHETTAPPA,
R/AT SHANKEGHATTA
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2 S R SHANTHARAJAIAH
SINCE DIED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
a) SMT.T.H.JAYAPADMA, 73 YEARS,
W/O LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH,
R/AT SHANKEGHATTA
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
b) PADMANABHAIAH, 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH,
31, NEAR SURYA DEPARTMENTAL STORES,
GNANAJOTHINAGAR, BANGALORE.
c) SMT.JWALA, 50 YEARS,
D/O LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH
R/AT BEHIND INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
9TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, TUMKUR.
d) SATHISH, 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH,
R/AT SHANKEGHATTA
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
3
e) SMT. RADHA PRASANNA KUMAR,
48 YEARS,
D/O LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH
31, NEAR SURYA DEPARTMENTAL STORES,
GNANAJOTHINAGAR, BANGALORE.
f) SURESH KUMAR, 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH,
NO.32, MALLIKARJUNA TEMLE ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE.
g) PADMALATHA, 37 YEARS,
13TH CROSS, PRAGATHI LAYOUT,
DODDANEKUNDI, MARATH HALLI,
BANGALORE - 37.
3 SMT LEELAMMA, 65 YEARS,
W/O LATE PADMARAJAIAH
R/AT SHANKEGHATTA
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
4 DHARANENDRA KUMAR, 40 YEARS,
W/O LATE PADMARAJAIAH
R/AT SHANKEGHATTA
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
5 JWALENDRA KUMAR, 29 YEARS,
S/O LATE PADMARAJAIAH
R/AT SHANKEGHATTA
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
6 DEVAKUMAR, 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE S R PUTTPPA
R/AT SHANKEGHATTA
4
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
7 VIJAYKUMARAIAH, 61 YEARS,
S/O LATE S R PUTTAPPA
NO.14, 3RD CROSS,
CHRIST KING SCHOOL ROAD,
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR
BANGALORE 16
8 JEEVENDRA KUMAR D S, 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI VIJAYAPPA
R/AT DADAGA, NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
9 B P BRAMESH, 50 YEARS,
S/O B P PADMANABAIAH
KOTE KUNIGAL TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
10 STATE BANK OF MYSORE
KUNIGAL BRANCH
KUNIGAL
TUMKUR DISTRICT
REPERSENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
11 CANARA BANK
KUNIGAL BRANCH
KUNIGAL
TUMKUR DISTRICT
REPERSENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
12 D J NAGESHA, 32 YEARS,
S/O JEEVENDRAKUMAR D S
DADAGA, NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
5
13 PADMANABHAIAH B.P.
YOUNGER BROTHER OF SREYALAMMA
SINCE DIED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
a) SMT. B.P.RAJESWARI, 56 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAVI KEERTHI,.
M.E.S. COLONY, KONENA AGRAHARA,
HAL POST, BANGALORE - 70.
b) SMT. B.P.SHYLAJA, 54 YEARS,
W/O M.J.PADMANABHAIAH,
NO.102, 12TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK,
SECOND STAGE, NAGARBHAVI,
BANGALORE 72.
c) B.P.BRAMESH, 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE PADMANABHAIAH,
R/AT KOTE, KUNIGAL.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. JWALAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R7 AND
LRS. OF R2(b) to (g),
SHRI. B.M.KRISHNA BHAT, ADV. FOR R12 & R13(A)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH/SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER ON I.A.NO'S XV
AND XVI DATED 06.04.2010 PASSED IN THE SUIT
O.S.NO.71/2005 BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN)
KUNIGAL VIDE ANNEXURE G ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
6
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.71/2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.2010, passed on I.A.Nos.15 and 16 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Kunigal. The said applications are filed under order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking impleadment by one D.J.Nagesha and Padmanabaiah B.P. respectively. By the impugned order, the said applications have been allowed.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.71/2005, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties to an extent of ¼ share each, on the premise of sub section (2) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is the plaintiffs' claim that the suit schedule properties belonged to one Nemirajaiah and on his demise and on the demise of his wife as well as the demise of their only daughter Jayapadma, who died intestate, the suit schedule properties would have to be inherited by the plaintiffs in terms of sub section (2) of Section 15 of the said Act. During the pendency of the said proceedings, 7 aforesaid applications were filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. It was contended on behalf of the applicant- D.J.Nagesh that he is the adopted son of Jayapadma and has a right to succeed to the suit schedule properties and therefore he is a necessary party to the suit. The application filed by Padmanabaiah B.P. for impleadment was on the premise that he is the brother of Nemirajaiah's widow namely, Sriyalamma and on her demise, he succeeded to the said properties. The Trial Court allowed both the applications.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the contesting respondents namely, respondents 12 and 13 and perused the material on record.
5. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule properties belong to one Nemirajaiah, who died intestate leaving behind his widow Sriyalamma and only daughter Jayapadma. Jayapadma was married to 8th defendant and on the demise of Jayapadma, who died without any issues, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs predicating their 8 right, title and interest on the basis of sub section (2) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, wherein the properties would have reverted back to the heirs of her father. Since D.J.Nagesh has filed the application to implead himself as a defendant on the premise that he is the adopted son of the deceased Jayapadma, his application has been rightly allowed by the Trial Court, having regard to the question as to whether the plaintiffs or the applicant D.J.Nagesh would have right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the impleadment of D.J. Nagesh is just and proper. Of course, his impleadment is subject to proving his adoption by deceased Jayapadma.
6. As far as the application filed by Padmanabhaiah B.P. is concerned, it is on the premise that Sriyalamma, widow of the deceased Nemirajaiah, had a right to the estate of Sriyalamma. However, it is not in dispute that Jayapadma succeeded to the estate of both her parents namely, Nemirajaiah and Sriyalamma. What is contested in the suit is with regard to the succession of the suit schedule properties after the death of Jayapadma. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of the Act, the 9 maternal uncle of the deceased Jayapadma would not have any right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties. The impleadment of Padmarajaiah B.P. is not in accordance with law and even in his absence, the suit could be proceeded with, as he is not a necessary or proper party. Therefore, the order passed on I.A.No.16 is quashed, while the order passed on I.A.No.15 is upheld.
7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed in part. Parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Msu