Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmamma vs Sri Munivenkatappa on 12 June, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.NO.38610/2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT SY NO.1 (B),
NEAR SYEDIBRAHIM DEWINSHA
DHARGA, HOSKOTE TOWN-562 114
BENGALURU DISTRICT
2. SRI.K.CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT SY NO.1 (B), NEAR
SYEDIBRAHIM DEWINSHA
DHARGA, HOSKOTE TOWN-562 114
BENGALURU DISTRICT
3. SRI.K.SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT FORT,
HOSKOTE TOWN
HOSKOTE-562 114
BENGALURU DISTRICT
4. SMT.K.PADMA
D/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT FORT,
HOSKOTE TOWN
HOSKOTE-562 114
BENGALURU DISTRICT
2
5. SMT.K.UMA
D/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT FORT, HOSKOTE TOWN,
HOSKOTE-562 114
BENGALURU DISTRICT
6. SMT.K.PUSHPA
D/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA
W/O MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT VOLAGEREPURA VILLAGE,
MUGBALA POST, HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 114
7. SMT.K.SAROJA
D/O LATE M.KRISHNAPPA
W/O LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT JANGAMASEEGEHALLI VILLAGE,
KAIVARA POST,
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563128
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. KAVITHA R REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT KJOTE,HOSKOTE TOWN
HOSKOTE-562 114
BENGALURU DISTRICT
2. SRI NAGARAJA
S/O CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT KJOTE, HOSKOTE TOWN
HOSKOTE-562 114
BENGALURU DISTRICT
3
3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NEW BUS STAND ROAD,
VENKATARAMASWAMY STREET,
VIJIPURA-562 135
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
4. SRI.H.R.MUNISINGH
S/O LATE RAM SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT KOTE, HOSKOTE TOWN,
HOSKOTE-562 114
BENGALURU DISTRICT
5. SMT.N.SHANTHAKUMARI
D/O LATE PUTTAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NAYANDRANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HIREKATTIGENAHALLI POST
CHINTAMANI TALUK-563128
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
6. SMT.N.USHA @ VISHALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE PUTTAMMA
W/O MUTHURAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT MELINA JUGGANAHALLI VILLAGE
GHATI POST-561203
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
7. SMT.N.GAYATHRI
D/O LATE PUTTAMMA
W/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT HALEHALLI VILLAGE
MANCHENAHALLI POST-561211
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
4
8. SRI.N.AMARANATH
S/O LATE PUTTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT SAROVARA BEEDI
DEVANAHALLI TOWN-562 110
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
9. SRI.N.ANANDA
S/O LATE PUTTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT SAROVARA BEEDI,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN-562 110
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
10. SMT. GIRIJA
W/O LATE N.MANJUNATH
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE PUTTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT SAROVARA BEEDI
DEVANHALLI TOWN-562 110
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
11. SMT.N.PUSHPA
D/O LATE PUTTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT OPP: RAGHAVENDRA BHAVANA,
NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS,
TOLGATE CIRCLE,
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106
12. SMT.N.RAJESHWARI
D/O LATE PUTTAMMA,
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT A2/11, DRDO COMPLEX
IRDE QUARTERS,
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 093
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V. ANANDA, ADV. FOR R1-R3;
SRI. CHANDAN RAO.S, ADV. FOR R4;
R5, R7, R9, R10 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
5
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2016 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED II - ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT IN O.S.792/2005 VIDE ANNEX-F.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Smt. Kavitha R. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Since petitioners have not taken steps to unserved respondents namely, respondent Nos.6, 8, 11 and 12, matter has been listed for orders.
2. On petitioners being impleaded as defendants 2 to 8, they have filed written statement and relied upon the sale deeds produced by them. Undisputedly, they did not produce the documents/sketches, which they sought for being marked during the course of trial and their prayer to mark them has been rejected by the impugned order dated 14.06.2016. This Court would not be in a position to examine the correctness of said order, since 6 impugned order does not disclose about any objection having been raised by parties to suit. The impugned order would disclose that marking of sketches produced by petitioners i.e., defendants 2 to 8 has been rejected only on the ground that it is not a certified copy and same has not been issued by a public office. It is for the defendants to establish their case based on the title deeds, which they have produced.
3. The sketch, which defendants 2 to 8 purported to have produced before the trial Court, though not prepared by public office or issued by any statutory authority, that does not prevent the defendants from producing the said documents in order to establish their case. Mere production or marking would not be sufficient proof. However, it is needless to state that reasons assigned by trial Court for rejection of marking of said documents cannot be accepted and at the cost of repetition, it requires to be noticed that defendants who intend to establish their case would be entitled to establish the same. Trial Court shall examine 7 as to whether the documents in question would be necessary for the proper adjudication of claim of the defendants and pass orders thereon.
4. Since respondents 1 to 3 are served and unrepresented, no opinion is expressed with regard to the merits of the claim. In the light of aforestated facts, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Order dated 14.06.2016 passed
by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, in
O.S.No.792/2005 - Annexure-F,
is set aside.
(iii) Matter is remitted back to trial Court to consider and examine as to whether documents, which have been produced by petitioners, are relevant or 8 otherwise and pass orders thereon by extending an opportunity to the respondents to have their say in the matter.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE DR