Karnataka High Court
Sri S K Vijayakumar vs Sri S K Ravikumar on 18 February, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
W.P.Nos.17512-17513/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S K VIJAYAKUMAR, 43 YEARS
S/O LATE S N KRISHNA KUMAR
R/AT NO. 852, CINEMA ROAD
I WARD, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN
2. SMT. SUSHMA, 33 YEARS
W/O S K VIJAYAKUMAR
R/AT NO. 852, CINEMA ROAD
I WARD, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V F KUMBAR, ADV.)
AND :
1. SRI S K RAVIKUMAR, 46 YEARS
S/O LATE S N KRISHNAKUMAR
R/AT NO.4314, NEW NO.4136
OPP NEW KARAGA TEMPLE, GANDHI CIRCLE
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN 561 203
2. SRI S K VASUDEVA, 42 YEARS
S/O LATE S N KRISHNAKUMAR
R/AT NO.4314, NEW NO.4136
OPP NEW KARAGA TEMPLE, GANDHI CIRCLE
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN 561 203
3. SMT SHARADAMMA, 67 YEARS
W/O LATE S N KRISHNAKUMAR
2
R/AT NO.4314, NEW NO.4136
OPP NEW KARAGA TEMPLE, GANDHI CIRCLE
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN 561 203
4. SMT RADHA @ RUKMINI, 48 YEARS
D/O LATE S N KRISHNAKUMAR
R/AT NO.4314, NEW NO.4136
OPP NEW KARAGA TEMPLE, GANDHI CIRCLE
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN 561 203
5. SRI S K AJAYKUMAR, 35 YEARS
S/O LATE S N KRISHNAKUMAR
R/AT NO.4314, NEW NO.4136
OPP NEW KARAGA TEMPLE, GANDHI CIRCLE
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN 561 203
6. THE KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
REPT BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
NO.1/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE 560 052
7. SRI D V GANDADHAR, 50 YEARS
S/O D VENKATARAMANAPPA
R/AT NO.10, 1ST CROSS
KARAGAPPA GARDEN
MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE 560027
8. SRI RAKESH KUMAR GOUR
S/O LATE KAILASH CHAND GOUR
R/AT NO.313, LAKSHMI ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MUNIYAPPA D NAVEEN, ADV.FOR R1 TO R4; SRI BIPIN
HEGDE, ADV.FOR R6; SRI GANESH BHAT Y.H.ADV.FOR R7)
3
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-G & ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for parties.
2. On 09.01.2012, learned trial Judge had passed an order reading as hereunder:-
"Plaintiffs No.1 to 4, D6 and their counsel present counsel plaintiff files memo stating he will not press suit against defendants No.4 and 6 hence suit of the plaintiffs against defendants 4 & 6 is dismissed as not pressed. For hearing on I.A.No.11 by 10/1."
3. On 14.03.2012, learned trial Judge had passed orders on IA No.12 and dismissed the suit against defendants 4 & 6 and also permitted plaintiffs to abandon relief in respect of suit item No.6. The impugned order reads thus:- 4
"ªÀÄ.C.12gÀ ªÉÄð£À DzÉñÀ F CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¹.¥Àæ.¸ÀA. DzÉñÀ 23 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1 gÀr ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, CfðAiÀ CfðAiÀÄ ±À¥ÀxÀ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÄSÁåA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ F PɼÀV£ÀAwgÀÄvÀÛªÉ.
F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À°è vÀªÀÄä »¸ÉìAiÀÄ ¥Á®Ä «¨sÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀPÁÌV ºÀÇrzÀÄÝ, zÁªÁ D¹Û LlA £ÀA.1 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¢ vÀ£Àß ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀÆ®AiÀÄzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ, »ÃUÁV ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ vÀ£Àß ¥ÀjºÁgÀª£ À ÀÄß ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÄÝ, F »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
PÀqÀvÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀj CfðUÉ AiÀƪÀÅzÉà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, §zÀ¯ÁV 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ «eÁÕ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°è¹ ¸ÀzÀj zÁªÁ D¹Û LlA £ÀA.1 PÀÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ vÀ£Àß »¸ÉìAiÀÄ §UÉÎ 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÉÆA¢UÉ A¢UÉ AiÀƪÀÅzÉà ¸ÀAzsÁ£ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ vÀ£Àß »¸ÉìUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀªÛ ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ PÉýPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¢ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¤¢üðµÀÖ ¥ÀæwªÁzÀ£AÉ iÉÆA¢UÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆÃj ºÀÆrzÀÄÝ, DvÀ vÀ£Àß zÁªÉAiÀÄ ªÀÆ°ÃPÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, AiÀƪÀ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ AiÀÆgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ J£ÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉüÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀz Û É£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ ¤zsÁgÀ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ªÁ¢ ¸ÀªÀð¸ÀévÀAvÀæ£ÁVzÀÄÝ F ¥ÀæPÀgt À zÀ°è DvÀ zÁªÁ D¹Û LlA £ÀA.1PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁUÀt t ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀĪÀ ¤zsÁðgÀ PÉÈUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, CACAvÀºÀ ¤zsÁðgÀ PÉÈUÉƼÀî®Ä CªÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¢üPÁgÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀ½îºÁPÀĪÀAw®è.5
ªÁ¢ CfðAiÀÄ°è PÉýPÉÆAqÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ MA MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ¨ÁzsÀPÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÁzÀ°è DvÀ vÀ£Àß ºÀQÌUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀzÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÈUÀÉƼÀî®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ «£ÀB ªÁ¢ ¸À°è¹zÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß C£ÀÄPÀÆ®PÉÌ vÀPÀÌAvÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¥Àæw¥Á¢¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÁUÉÆAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ªÀÄ.C.12 ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀjUÀt£ÉUÉ AiÉÆÃUÀåªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªAÉ zÁzÀ°è CzÀ CzPÀ ÉÌ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥Àæw¤¢ü¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«zÀÄÝ, ºÁUÉà ªÀiÁqÀzÃÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¸À°è¹zÀ «eÁÕ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀÆPÀª Û ÉAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß vÀ½îºÁQ ªÁ¢ ¸À°è¹zÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄzÀ »vÀzÀÄȶ֬ÄAzÀ ÄAzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÉAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ ªÁ¢ ¹.¥Àæ.¸ÀA. DzÉñÀ 23 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1 gÀr ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÀÄ.C.12£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÁ¢ zÁªÁ D¹Û LlA £ÀA.1 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ vÀ£Àß ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÄzÀÞ ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¸ÁQëUÁV 28-28-3 PÉÌ ªÀÄÄAzÀÆqÀ¯ÁVzÉ."
4. The learned trial Judge has held that plaintiffs are dominus litis; they can abandon part of claim or delete parties and defendants cannot impose terms on plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge has ignored the settled principles of law.
6
5. In a suit for partition, array of parties as plaintiffs or defendants does not make any difference. In a suit for partition, plaintiff cannot be termed as dominus litis to abandon part of claim or delete parties. The learned trial Judge has ignored the settled principles of law.
6. The learned trial Judge has also ignored the necessary and proper parties in a suit for partition.
7. In a decision reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4129 (in the case of S.K.Lakshminarasappa, since deceased by his L.Rs. Vs. Sri B.Rudraiah & others), this court has held:-
"59. In a partition suit, all co-parceners must be before Court either as plaintiffs or as defendants. Any co-parcener or co-sharer who sues for partition of property must make the other co-parceners or co-sharers as defendants because the partition which is made in his favour is a partition against his co-parceners or co-sharers. Any decree which gives him a portion of property takes away all rights which they, i.e., the others co-parceners or co-sharers would otherwise have to that portion, and 7 therefore, it is a decree against them an in his favour. A decree for partition made in a suit instituted by a member of Joint Hindu Family is therefore res judicata as between all who are parties to the suit. Besides the co-parceners, the wife, the mother, grand-mother or other legal heirs, are necessary parties to the suit when they are entitled to a share on a partition having succeeded to the estate of such co-parceners or co-sharers. When the partition is claimed as between branches of the family only, the heads of all the branches alone need be made parties. Of course, in such a case, it is open to the others to apply to be made parties. Those members of the family who are entitled to maintenance would be proper parties to a suit for partition. So too, the joinder of creditors and in particular decree holders as well as mortgages as defendants may be proper in cases where their claims are disputed. Every co-parcener and every purchaser of the interest of a co-parcener is entitled to institute a suit for partition.
60. In Section 333 of Mulla's Hindu Law 17th Edition at page 537 dealing with the 8 question as to who should be the parties to the suit, it is stated as under:-
a) The plaintiff in a partition suit should implead as defendants:-
(i) the heads of all branches:
(ii) females who are entitled to a share on partition:
(iii) the purchaser of a portion of the plaintiff's share, the plaintiff himself being a coparcener;
(iv) if the plaintiff himself is a purchaser from a coparcener, his alienor.
b) It is desirable that the following persons should be made parties; though not necessary parties, they are proper parties to such a suit:
(i) a mortgage with possession of the family property or of the undivided interest of a coparcener;
(ii) simple mortgagees of specific items of the family property;
(iii) purchaser of the undivided interest of a coparcener;
(iv) persons entitled to provision for their maintenance and marriage, that is, widows, 9 daughters, sisters and such like and distinguished heirs;
(v) any person entitled to maintenance from the family, the plaintiff may also plead any other coparcener or any person interested in the family property such as a mortgage or a lessee.
Such a person may himself apply and be made a party."
8. The learned trial Judge ignoring the settled principles of law has proceeded on the premise that plaintiffs are dominus litis; they can abandon any of suit schedule property and they can also give up parties to suit as they desire. The learned trial Judge having dismissed the suit against defendants 4 & 6 as extracted supra should not have passed a similar order on IA No.12.
9. Therefore, I pass the following:-
ORDER The writ petition is accepted. The orders dated 09.01.2012 and order dated 14.03.2012 are set aside.
However, if plaintiffs chose to give up parties or abandon any 10 part of suit claim, plaintiffs are at liberty to make an application in accordance with law. In such an event, learned trial Judge shall hear all the parties and pass orders in the light of observations made herein and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN