Karnataka High Court
Padmanabhaiah B P vs Sri Padmarajaiah S N on 4 March, 2013
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
REVIEW PETITION NO.1161/2012
IN
WRIT PETITION NOS.19877-19878/2010 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
PADMANABHAIAH B P
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1. SMT. B.P.RAJESWARI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O. LATE RAVI KEERTHI,
RESIDING AT MES COLONY,
KONENA AGRAHARA, HAL POST,
BANGALORE-560 070
2. SMT. B.P.SHYLAJA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O. M.J.PADMANABHAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.102, 12TH MAIN,
9TH BLOCK, SECOND STAGE,
NAGARBHAVI,
BANGALORE-560 072
3. SRI B.P.BRAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE PADMANABHAIAH,
RESIDING AT KOTE,
KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
2
(BY SRI B M KRISHNA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI PADMARAJAIAH S N
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O. LATE S.R.NAGANNA,
RESIDING AT NO.17/1, 8TH CROSS,
C BLOCK, MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 023
2.SRI VRUSHABARAJU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE S.R.NAGANNA,
RESIDING AT NO.441, KHB COLONY,
2ND STAGE, IV MAIN,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560079
3. SRI JAWALANNA S.N.,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O. LATE S.R.NAGANNA,
RESIDING AT NO.242, 3RD CROSS,
C.T.BED, THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 028
4. SRI JAYAPRAKASH S.N.,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O LATE S.R.NAGANNA,
RESIDING AT NO.66, 2ND MAIN,
4TH CROSS, B.M.LAYOUT,
VITTAL NAGAR, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE-560 026
5. SRI S.R.ADHIRAJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAMASHETTAPPA,
RESIDING AT SHANKEGHATTA,
MAGADI TALUK,
3
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
6. SRI S.R.SHANTHARAJAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
6A. SMT.T.H.JAYAPADMA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH,
RESIDING AT SHANKEGHATTA,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
6B. SRI PADMANABHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.31, NEAR SURYA
DEPARTMENTAL STORES,
GNANAJOTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE.
6C. SMT JWALA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
D/O. LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH,
RESIDING AT BEHIND INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
9TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR,
TUMKUR
6D. SRI SATHISH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH,
RESIDING AT SHANKEGHATTA,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
6E. SMT. RADHA PRASANNA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
D/O. LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.31,
4
NEAR SURYA DEPARTMENTAL STORES,
GNANAJOTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE
6F. SRI SURESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANTHARAJAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.32,
MALLIKARJUNA TEMPLE ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE.
6G. SMT. PADMALATHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 13TH CROSS,
PRAGATHI LAYOUT,
DODDANEKUNDI, MARTHHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 037
7. SMT. LEELAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O. LATE PADMARAJAIAH,
RESIDING AT SHANKEGHATTA,
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
8. SRI DHARANENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. LATE PADMARAJAIAH,
RESIDING AT SHANKEGHATTA,
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
9. SRI JWALENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O. LATE PADMARAJAIAH,
RESIDING AT SHANKEGHATTA,
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RUAL DISTRICT.
5
10. SRI DEVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O. LATE S.R.PUTTAPPA,
RESIDING AT SHANKEGHATTA,
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
11. SRI VIJAYKUMARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. LATE S.R.PUTTAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.14, 3RD CROSS,
CHRIST KING SCHOOL ROAD,
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 016
12. SRI JEEVENDRA KUMAR, D.S.
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VIJAYAPPA,
RESIDING AT DADAGA,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
13. STATE BANK OF MYSORE
KUNIGAL BRANCH,
KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
14. CANARA BANK
KUNIGAL BRANCH, KUNIGAL,
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
15. SRI D.J.NAGESHA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O. JEEVENDRAKUMAR, D.S.,
DADAGA, NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
16. B P BRAMESH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
6
S/O B P PADMANABAIAH,
KOTE KUNIGAL TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
******
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER
47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 17-10-2012 PASSED IN W.P.19877-
19878/2012 (GM-CPC), ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Review Petition assails the order dated 17.10.2012 by which, the order allowing the application filed by Sri Padmanabaiah B.P. seeking impleadment in the suit OS No.71/2005 passed on IA No.16 was quashed. The said IA was filed by Sri Padmanabaiah B.P. to come on record to succeed to the estate of Sriyalamma and Jayapadma.
2. In para 5 of the order dated 17.10.2012, it is noted as follows:
"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 7 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 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."
It is under those circumstances that the person claiming to be the adopted son of Jayapadma was impleaded, but the impleadment of Sri Padmanabaiah B.P. who claims to be the brother of Sriyalamma was 8 allowed by the Trial Court and the same was quashed by the order sought to be reviewed.
3. The suit property came by succession to Sriyalamma, widow of Nemirajaiah, and his daughter Jayapadma and in those circumstances, it is only the sons, daughters and husband of Jayapadma who could succeed to the estate of both her parents as per sub Section (1) of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with regard to the property of female Hindu who died intestate. However sub Section (2) of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 states that when the property is inherited by a female from her parents, then the said property in the absence of son or daughter of the deceased including the children of any predeceased daughter or son would devolve upon the heirs of her father. That being the position, in the instant case, the heirs of Jayapadma's father would succeed to the property in terms of sub Section (2) of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 if there are no sons or daughters of Jayalpadma. Therefore, the application 9 filed by the maternal uncle of Jayapadma was erroneously allowed by the Trial Court as he is not an heir of the father of Jayalpadma. Even if there were any absolute properties of Sriyalamma on her demise, they would have been inherited by Jayapadma as her only heir under Section 14(1) read with Section 15(1)(a) of the said Act. On the demise of Jayapadma, Section 15(1) or Section 15(2) would come into operation. The maternal uncle of Jayapadma i.e. the brother of Sriyalamma cannot succeed either under Section 15 or under Section 16 of the said Act, and hence, the order of the Trial Court allowing the application was quashed in the writ petition. The order in the writ petition would not call for any interference.
In the result, Review Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL