Karnataka High Court
Sri Pillappa vs Smt Anjinamma on 13 October, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37518
WP No. 22171 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 22171 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PILLAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNICHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
2. SRI. MURTHY P,
S/O LATE PILLAPPA THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BYRE GOWDA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
A K CHANDRIKA
1. SMT. ANJINAMMA,
Location: High W/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA,
Court Of
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
HINDU, AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
2. SMT. NARAYANAMMA,
W/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37518
WP No. 22171 of 2023
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
3. SMT. SUNANDAMMA,
W/O DEVARAJA,
D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT BACHCHALLI VILLAGE,
KALVARA POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 101.
4. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI,
W/O SHIVAKUMAR,
D/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BIDALURU VILLAGE
AND POST, KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
5. VENKATESH,
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
6. SRI. PILLAPPA,
S/O LATE CHANAPPA @ CHANNA @
DODDACHANNAPPA,
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
7. CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRA,
S/O SRI.PILLAPPA,
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:37518
WP No. 22171 of 2023
R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
8. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O RAMESH,
D/O PILLAPPA, HINDU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
9. MURALI S/O PILLAPPA,
HINDU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
10. SMT. GANGAMMA,
W/O SRI. PILLAPPA,
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 04/03/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL
PASSED ON IA NO.7/2022 IN OS 394/2018 (ANNEXURE - F)
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA 7/2022 AS PRAYED FOR IN
ITS ENTIRETY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:37518
WP No. 22171 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioners, impleading applicants in O.S.No.394/2018 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, are before this Court aggrieved by rejection of I.A.No.7 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') to come on record as additional defendants.
2. Heard Sri. Byregowda.N., learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners claiming to be legal heirs of Thoti Thimmarayappa, filed application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to come on record as additional defendants. It is submitted that the impleading applicants being legal heirs of Thoti Thimmarayappa are also having share in the suit schedule property and since they have interest in the subject matter -5- NC: 2023:KHC:37518 WP No. 22171 of 2023 of the suit, they may be permitted to come on record as additional defendants.
4. On perusal of the writ petition papers and on hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Moreover, the impugned order is neither perverse nor suffers from any material irregularity so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The trial Court in its order has observed as follows:
"The partition deed dated 12-08-1968 indicates division between sons of Thimmarayappa. The said Doddachannappa got the properties independently. The wife of Moogappa and said Munichannappa got share jointly. The partition deed dated 21-12-2002 indicates division of said joint share between heirs of Moogappa and Munichannappa. Therefore, it would indicates disruption of entire joint family. The plaintiff has filed another suit bearing O.S.No.1034/2022 in respect of property bearing Sy.No. 118 measuring 28 guntas which is standing in -6- NC: 2023:KHC:37518 WP No. 22171 of 2023 the name of Pillappa. The said property is all together different from the suit property which are allotted to the share of Doddachannappa. Therefore, the applicants cannot claim only on the basis of said suit to contend that, the joint family is existing. The material document such as partition deed and record of rights indicates severance of sons of Thimmarayappa. Therefore, I hold that, the applicants have failed to make out ground to seek impleadment in the present suit. Hence I hold above Point in the Negative."
6. It is seen that under partition deed dated 12.08.1968, partition has taken place between sons of Thoti Thimmarayappa. The present suit for partition is among family members of Branch of Doddachannappa S/o Thoti Thimmarayappa. Whereas, the impleading applicants are family members of Munichannappa. Doddachannappa, Moogappa, Munichannappa are sons of Thoti Thimmarayappa. Impleading applicants are in no way concerned with the partition of the Branch of Doddachannappa.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:37518 WP No. 22171 of 2023
7. In the above circumstances, I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28