Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanaswamy vs Sri Ramanjinappa on 18 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 55266 OF 2016(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT KEMPALINGANAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.CHIDANANDA P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RAMANJINAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O SRI. RAMANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
3. SRI. RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
4. SRI. ANJINEE
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
2
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
5. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
6. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
D1 TO 6, R/AT KEMPALINGANAPURA,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
7. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
W/O JAYARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/A PARASANA PALYA,
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571511.
8. SMT. VIDYAVATHI
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT ANAGATTA, BIDALLURA POST,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
9. SMT. G. SRINIVASA
S/O SURYANARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.66, 1ST CROSS,
2ND MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
H.A.L. BANGALORE-560 075.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.S.SHASHIBHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3;
3
R4 TO 6, 8 & 9 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
AND SET ASIDE OR QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
31.08.2016 ON I.A.10 IN O.S.491/2008 PASSD BY THE SR. CIVIL
JUDGE, AT DEVANAHALLI AT ANNEX-E THEREBY ALLOWING THE
I.A.10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order of the learned Judge passed on I.A.No.10 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, wherein the present petitioner/plaintiff filed impleading application to implead the purchaser of item No.5. Said application is rejected.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff has instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.491/2008. Pending suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.1 and 2 have sold item No.5 in favour of proposed defendant No.10. In a partition suit, a pendente lite purchaser is not at all a 4 necessary party. The Court is required to examine the nature of suit schedule property and if found to be joint family ancestral property has to quantify the shares. Therefore, while drawing the preliminary decree, neither the purchaser before filing of the suit nor the pendente lite purchaser are necessary party. Their presence is absolutely not necessary to adjudicate the controversy between the family members. Even otherwise, the right of a purchaser in a pending partition suit is subject to quantification of share. A pendente lite purchaser cannot contest the suit and his sale deed is subject to the determination of the share by the Trial Court. Therefore, I am of the view that a pendente lite purchaser is not at all a necessary party. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in rejecting the application. No error is made out.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA