Supreme Court - Daily Orders
T.Balakrishnam Naidu (D) By L.Rs. vs R. Muniraju on 3 April, 2024
Bench: Vikram Nath, Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5877 OF 2009
T.BALAKRISHNAM NAIDU (D) ... APPELLANT(S)
BY L.RS.
Versus
R. MUNIRAJU & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by defendant no. 1.
2. The plaintiff(s)-respondent(s) instituted a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injuction, impleading the present- appellant and Smt. Shantha Bai as defendants. Signature Not Verified During the pendency of the trial, an issue came up Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2024.04.13 11:51:34 IST Reason: that the land, in question, belongs to the 1 parties or to the Revenue Department of the State. The plaint was amended, as a result of which the Banglore Development Authority (BDA) as also the Muzari Department(MD),Bangalore were impleaded as defendant nos. 3 and 4.
3. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record led by the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2, did not decree the suit holding that the land actually belongs to the MD.
It would be worthwhile to mention here that the trial is proceeded ex parte against the MD(Defendant no. 4). 4. The plaintiff preferred an appeal registered as RFA No. 360/2003 before the
Karnataka High Court. The respondents arraigned in the appeal before the High Court were the legal heirs of defendant no.1 as he had died in the meantime and defendant no.2 Smt. Shantha Bai. The BDA and the MD were not impleaded as defendants in the appeals. The High Court reversed the finding recorded by the Trial Court and proceeded to decree the suit on the finding that the plaintiff 2 and defendant(s) were the owner of the land in question, and as such, were entitled to a decree of declaration, recovery of possession and injunction.
5. Aggrieved by the same defendant no. 1 has preferred this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, this Court vide order dated 12th March, 2019 directed that the State of Karnataka should also be heard and represented in the present proceedings and accordingly required learned counsel for the State of Karnataka to appear and assist the Court.
6. Presently, the State is now represented and it is then stand that the appeal before the High Court was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the State through MD and the BDA who were defendants to the suit had not been arrayed as respondents before the High Court. In their absence the High Court has reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the MD. Learned counsel for the State of Karnataka has thus supported the present appeal filed by 3 defendant no. 1.
7. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaindiff(s)-respondent(s) sought to argue the matter on merits that no fruitful purpose would be served by remitting the matter back to the High Court to proceed afresh by impleading the MD and BDA, as according to him neither the defendant no. 1 nor the MD has any right, title and/or interest in the land, in question, as the land had duly been purchased by the plaintiff(s) and he was the real owner.
8. He has further submitted that after the decree of the suit by the High Court the plaintiff-respondent has got possession of the property in execution proceedings, for which he has referred to his counter affidavit and the documents filed in support of receiving the possession in full satisfaction of the decree recorded by the Trial Court.
9. Although learned counsel for the appellant disputed the fact that the possession ha 4 been taken by the respondents but he has not been able to show or rebut the documentary evidence relied upon by the learned senior Counsel for the plaintiff(s)-respondent(s).
10. Whatever be the case, we are not commenting on the issue of possession, however, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court on the above ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties and opportunity not being afforded to the State in particular and restore the Fist Appeal RFA No. 360/2003 to its original number to be heard and decided afresh on merits after impleading the MD and the BDA (defendant nos. 4 and 3) before the Trial Court. As the matter is an old one, we request the High Court to give priority to the hearing of the said appeal.
11. We also make it clear that we have not considered the matter on merits and we have allowed this appeal on the technical ground recorded above.
5
12. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
……………………………………………………………J. [VIKRAM NATH] ………………………………………………………………J. [ PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA] NEW DELHI;
APRIL 03, 2024.
6
ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.9 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 5877/2009 T.BALAKRISHNAM NAIDU (D) BY L.RS. Appellant(s) VERSUS R. MUNIRAJU & ORS. Respondent(s) ( IA No. 159199/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 6172/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 159198/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 03-04-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Appellant(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Adv. Mr. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Aryan Pandey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S N Bhat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D P Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Tarun Kumar Thakur, Adv. Ms. Parvati Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Ram, Adv.
Mr. Abhay Choudhary M, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR Mr. Prateek Chadha, A.A.G. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following 7 O R D E R The application for substitution is allowed.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SONIA BHASIN) (RANJANA SHAILEY) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) [Signed Order is placed on the file] 8