Karnataka High Court
Sri H Venkatappa vs Smt. Anges Gloria on 4 April, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.NOS.60592/2016 & 10905-913/2017
BETWEEN
1. SRI H VENKATAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 40/1,
5TH CROSS ROAD,
SUBRAMANYA PURA POST,
UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANGALORE - 560061
2. SMT KALAMMA
W/O H VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOTU 63 YEARS,
3. SMT SUBBAMMA
W/O H VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
5. YASHODHAMMA
W/O BABU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
6. RUKMINAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 2 TO 6 ARE
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
2
SRI H VENKATAPPA,
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 40/1,
5TH CROSS ROAD,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 061
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.GIRISH KUMAR FOR SRI. NISHANTH A V, ADVS.)
AND:
1. SMT. ANGES GLORIA
W/O S ANTONISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT # 126,
30TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
RASTRAKAVI KUVEMPUNAGARA,
B T M LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
WARD NO.176, BANGALORE - 560076
2. SRI RAVINDRA P BHAT
S/O PARAMESHWARA BHAT
#129, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
JABBAR BLOCK,
VAIYALIKAVAL
BANGALORE-560 030
3. SRI N.K.DANDAPANI
S/O KUPPUSWAMY,
RESIDING AT #E-71,
KRUMBIGAL ROAD CROSS,
CHIKKAMAVALLI,
BANGALORE-560 004
4. SRI K KESHAVALU NAIDU
S/O K SRINIVASALU NAIDU,
RESIDING AT #40/1,
VENKATESHWARA ROAD,
5TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
PADMANABHANAGARA,
3
BANGALORE-560 071
5. SRI N TYAGARAJU
S/O LATE G.C.RAMACHETTY
RESIDING AT #251,
3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
B.H.C.S. LAYOUT,
BANK COLONY,
UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 061
6. S ANTONISWAMY
S/O I SOWRAPPA
RESIDING AT #126,
30TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
RASTRAKAVI KUVEMPUNAGARA
B.T.M. LAYOUT 2ND STAGE,
WARD NO.1765, BANGALORE-560 076
7. THE SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE
8. M/S POORNA PRAGNA HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.552
POORNAPRAJNA SUVARNA BHAVANA,
1ST FLOOR, UTTARAALLI,
KENGERI MAIN ROAD,
POORNALPRAJNA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560061
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
MR.L.NANJAPPA
9. SMT. SUMATHIKAMATH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
W/O SRI.K.P.KAMATH,
NO.268, 8TH MAIN,
50 FEET ROAD, NAGENDRA BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560050
10. SRI.P.KAVERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O SRIPAPANNA,
NO.20, CHIKKALLASANDRA,
4
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BANGALORE-560061
11. SRI.K.H.AITHALA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O SRI.K.L.AITHALA,
NO.602/642, 12TH CROSS,
2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560085
12. SRI.K.R.ANIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI.K.H.RAMANNA,
NO.1395, FLAT NO.202
SIRISKYWOOD, 43RD MAIN ROAD,
POORNAPRAJNA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560061
13. SMT. SUMA K
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
D/O SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY,
NO.198, SRINAGAR,
BSK 1ST STAGE, 21ST MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560050
14. SRI.K .N.NARAYANARAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O SRI. K.L.NARASIMHA MURTHY,
NO.112/1995, UPSTAIRS,
6TH CROSS, T.R.NAGAR 3RD BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560028
15. SRI.B.KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O N.T.BYRE GOWDA,
NO.931, 5TH A CROSS,
5TH MAIN, 5TH STAGE,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560098
16. SMT. MANJU BEGWANI
MAJOR,
W/O FATECHANDBEGWANI,
R/A NO.2C, RAJESHWARI REGENCY,
5
IDEAL HOME SOCIETY,
OPP TO CMC OFFICE,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560098
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K R KRISHNA MURTHY FOR C/R8)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 21.10.2016 VIDE
ANNX-F PASSED BY THE 29TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.2295/2012, ALLOWING THE
APPLICATIONS I.E., I.A.NOS.9,12 TO 20 AND BE PLEASED
TO DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATIONS.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Girish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Nishanth A.V., for petitioners and Sri.Amar Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.K.R.Krishna Murthy for Caveator / respondent No.3. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners have instituted the suit O.S.No.2295/2012 for the relief of declaration to declare 6 that agreements dated 07.07.2005 and 21.08.2007 executed in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6 to terminate / cancel by virtue of willful breach of contract committed by defendants 1 to 6; also for a perpetual injunction to restrain defendants 3 to 6 from pursuing with five (5) sale deeds dated 29.08.2007 presented for registration before defendant No.7 and to get the same registered without reference to plaintiffs and for further relief of perpetual injunction is also sought against defendants 1 to 6 from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by plaintiffs.
3. During the pendency of suit an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (1) read with Section 151 of CPC came to be filed by respondents 8 to 16 for getting themselves impleaded as defendants 8 to 16. Said application was resisted to by the plaintiffs contending that they are neither necessary nor proper parties and the scope of suit would get enlarged by virtue of applicants being impleaded in the suit. Trial Court by 7 order under challenge has allowed the application on two grounds namely, that plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of facts to the effect that very same plaintiffs had entered into a compromise in O.S.No.7221/1991 admitting that Sy.No.53 measuring 2 acres 27 guntas (item No.2 of suit schedule property) is in the possession of proposed 8th defendant and entire consideration amount of Rs.17,59,750/- had been received by them and this fact was not disclosed in the suit in question and also on the ground that 8th defendant had formed sites in the said area and had sold the same to proposed defendants 9 to 16 and as such, it held that they are having interest over the subject matter of suit.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioners that by virtue of defendants 8 to 16 being impleaded, the scope of suit would get enlarged and the limited relief which the plaintiffs have sought for is only against defendants 1 to 6 and 7th defendant and as such, trial Court could not have 8 allowed the proposed defendants 8 to 16 to come on record. Hence, he seeks for setting aside the order under challenge.
5. Per contra, Sri. Amar Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents would support the order under challenge and prays for affirming the same.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records it would clearly disclose that very same petitioners have also filed a suit in O.S.No.3706/2011 not only against proposed defendants 8 to 16 but also against other persons namely, 53 persons in all, for the relief of declaration of title in respect of Sy.No.53 measuring 2 acres 27 guntas, which is also the subject matter of the present suit. This would only indicate that plaintiffs herein are claiming relief in the said suit against proposed defendants 8 to 16 also. In the instance suit, plaintiffs are asserting that they are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties i.e., item No.2, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.3706/2011. As 9 such it cannot be gainsaid by the plaintiffs that proposed defendants 8 to 16 are not having any semblance of right to appear and contest in the present suit, inasmuch as, proposed defendants are also asserting that they are in possession of respective portions of sites allotted to them by 8th defendant / society.
7. That part, as rightly noticed by trial Court, the very same plaintiffs had entered into a compromise with 8th defendant in O.S.No.7221/1991 by filing a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC by agreeing or admitting thereunder that 8th defendant is in possession of suit properties i.e., item No.2 and this fact having not been disclosed in the present suit i.e., O.S.No.2295/2012, it has been held that plaintiffs had suppressed this fact. In other words, it would clearly disclose that plaintiffs are attempting to obtain a decree in respect of item No.2 of suit property, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.3706/2011 filed by the very same plaintiffs / writ petitioners by seeking relief 10 against defendants 8 to 16 and as such, they would be necessary and proper parties to the present suit and as such order of the trial Court by allowing the application and permitting the proposed defendants 8 to 16 to come on record, cannot be found fault with. Hence, this Court finds there is no other good ground to interfere with the order passed by trial Court. Accordingly, writ petitions stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE DR