Karnataka High Court
Smt Ammayamma vs Mr Ramaswamy S/O Late Muniswamappa on 28 June, 2013
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA
WRIT PETITION No.4749/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
1 SMT AMMAYAMMA
W/O LATE ANNAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
2 SRI A CHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA
3 SRI A MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA
4 SRI A VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA
P-1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO 21 AND 21/1,
KADIRAPPA ROAD,
DODDAKANUTE
SARVAGNA NAGAR,
(COX TOWN)
BANGALORE 560 005
2
5 SMT A LALITHA
W/O A NARAYANA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP
NOT CLAIMED)
NO 376, 16TH CROSS
SARASWATHI NAGAR,
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 040
6 SMT A NEELA
W/O N JAGANATHA (DECEASED)
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NO 20, 2ND CROSS
KADIRAPPA ROAD,
DODDIKUNTE, COX TOWN
BANGALORE 560 005
7 SMT A ANUSUYA
W/O R SURYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO 2332,
6TH A MAIN, 14TH CROSS,
RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 40
8 SMT A PUSHPA
W/O G RAVI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO 17/3,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
(MAIN CHANNEL ROAD)
ULSOOR, BANGALORE 8
9 MRS MUNIRATHNA
D/O LATE M NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3
NO 20, 2ND CROSS,
KADIRAPPA ROAD,
DODDAKUNTE, COX TOWN
BANGALORE 560 005
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
10 SRI N BALARAM
S/O LATE M NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NO 66, 6TH CROSS,
KADIRAPPA ROAD,
DODDAKUNTE COX TOWN
BANGALORE 560 005
11 SMT N SUMITRA
D/O LATE M NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O SHANKAR
C/O MUNINANJAPPA
KYALANAHALLI, KOTHANUR POST
BANGALORE 560 077
12 SRI N SRINIVAS
S/O LATE M NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NO 20, 2ND CROSS,
KADIRAPPA ROAD,
DODDAKUNTE COX TOWN
BANGALORE 560 005. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.V.ANAND, ADV.)
AND :
1 MR RAMASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
4
2 MRS SHARADHAMMA
W/O M JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3 MRS J. HAMASAVENI
W/O NAGRAJ
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4 MR VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
5 MR TRILOK CHANDER
S/O LATE JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R-1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NO 21, 2ND CROSS,
KADIRAPPA ROAD,
COX TOWN
BANGALORE 560 005.
6 HEMANTH KUMAR.N,
S/O.LATE A.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
7 JAYADEV,
S/O LATE A.NAGRAJ
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
8 SMT.KAMALAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O.LATE A.MUNISWAMY,
9 SRI.M.LAKSHMIPATHY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O.LATE A.MUNISWAMY,
5
10 M.MANJU KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O.LATE A.MUNISWAMY,
R-6 TO 10 ARE
R/A.NO.22 & 22/1,
2ND CROSS,
KADIRAPPA ROAD,
DODDAKUNTE COX TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 005.
11 SMT.M.RENUKA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O.V.DEVARAJ,
D/O.LATE A.MUNISWAMY,
R/O.ATTIBELE,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
12 SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O.LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/A NO.4, 1ST MAIN,
DOMMLUR 2ND STAGE,
INDRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 071.
13 SRI ANAND
S/O LATE CHIKKANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO 39/12, 7TH MAIN
HAL II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038
14 SRI K R KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
6
S/O LATE K V RANGAIAH CHETTY
R/AT NO 110
IBRAHIM SAHEB STREET,
BENGALURU 560 001
15 SRI V JAYARAM
S/O VENKATARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.125, 2ND CROSS,
JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN
BENGALURU 560 005
16 SMT.J.NIVEDITHA,
W/O.KUMAR
D/O.LATE JAGANATH
R/A NO.4, 7TH MAIN,
PRATHAMA NILAYA,
BABUSAAB PALYA,
BANGALORE-560 043. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR C/R7)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.11.12 ON THE
IA DATED 11.6.12 IN OS 2901/07 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL PRINCIPAL JUDGE AT
BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
7
ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court praying for quashing the Order dated 17.11.2012 passed on an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the applicants as Defendants 19 to 22 in O.S.No.2901/2007 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore city at Annexure 'E'.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proposed applicants who claim themselves to be the agreement-holders, are not necessary parties for adjudication of the suit for partition, but the Trial Court erred in allowing the application and permit them to come on record as Defendants 19 to 22.
3. Learned counsel for Respondents 12 to 15 herein submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order.
4. It is the case of the Respondents 12 to 15 herein that they have entered into an agreement of sale with reference to Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and 8 therefore, they are proper and necessary parties for adjudication of the suit for partition and the trial Court is justified in allowing the impleading application and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order.
5. Perused the impugned Order.
6. In Para No.5 of the impugned Order, the Trial Court has observed that the proposed defendants have claimed that they are the agreement-holders who purchased the site by paying valuable consideration and they have a remedy elsewhere to enforce the agreements in question. In spite of such an observation, impleading application has been allowed. The proposed defendants are not necessary parties for adjudication of the suit for partition. The impugned Order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. In the result, Petition is allowed and the impugned Order dated 17.11.2012 passed on an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC in O.S.No.2901/2007 on the file of City Civil Judge, 9 Bangalore city, is quashed and the impleading application is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv*