Karnataka High Court
Seetharamaiah vs Smt Lakshmamma on 8 July, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
R.F.A.NO.775 OF 2013(DEC/INJ)
C/W
R.F.A.No.481 OF 2014(DEC/PAR)
IN R.F.A.No. 775/2013
BETWEEN
SEETHARAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. SRI.RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE. SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2. SMT. NEELA
D/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
3. SMT. DIVYA
D/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
4. SMT. SUSHMA
D/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
APPELLANTS 1(A) TO 1(D)
ARE ALL RESIDING AT
NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN
BENGALUR - 560 005.
5. SMT. SHANTHA
W/O LATE. KONDANDA
2
(DECEASED SON OF LATE SEETHARAMAIAH)
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
6. SRI. DHARMENDRA
S/O LATE. KODANDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
7. SMT. NANVITHA @ MONIKA (DEAD)
D/ O. LATE. KODANDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
8. SMT. DEVI
D/O LATE. KODANDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
APPELLANTS 5 T0 8 ARE
ALL RESIDING AT
NO. 153, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.D.L. JAGADEESH., SR.COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. LOHITASWA BENAKAL., ADVOCATE
V/O/DT: 03.02.2021 A-1 DEAD & A-2 TO A-4 ARE LR'S OF A-1)
AND
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S
SMT. NARAYANAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
SRI. VENKATRAMANAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. SRI.V.CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
(SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS)
1(A) SAVITRAMMA
W/O. V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
1(B) SMT. RAVIKUMAR
3
S/O. V.CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
1(C) SMT. RADHA
D/O.V.CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 153
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
SRI.V. BALALKRISHNA
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
(DIED UNMARRIED AND HENCE
REPRESENTED BY 3(A), (E) AND (F)
SRI.V.MUNIRAJA
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
(DIED UNMARRIED AND HENCE
REPRESENTED BY 3(A), (E) AND (F)
SRI. V.VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
(DIED UNMARRIED AND HENCE
REPRESENTED BY 3(A), (E) AND (F)
2. SRI. V.BABU
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
3. SRI.V.VENKATESH
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS (A) (E) AND (F)
ARE ALL NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
4. SRI. A.M. SHIVA RAJKUMAR
S/O A.V.MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
5. SRI.M. BALAKRISHNA
S/O A.V. MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
4
6. SRI.A.V. MUNISWAMY
H/O RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
G(I) TO G(III) ARE RESIDING AT
DAMMULA, GUNDISALU
DIGGUR VILLAGE, PERISANDRA
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
ALSO RESIDING AT NO. 153
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
7. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O. SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT GUDIBANDE, BAGEPALLE
KOLAR DISTRICT.
ALSO RESIDING AT
NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
SMT. SHARADA
D/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S/
8. SMT. CHANDRA
D/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ALSO RESIDING AT
NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT., ADVOCATE
FOR R-1(A TO C), R-3 TO R-8
SRI. C.V. MANJUNATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO R-9(A-B)
V/O/DT: 10.02.2016, R-1 & R-3 TO R-8 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF
DEAD R-2 & R-6)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 02.01.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO. 15400/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.
5
IN R.F.A.No. 481/2014
BETWEEN
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O.K. VENKATARAMANAPPA
153, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
(SINCE DECEASD BY LRS)
SMT. NARASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O LATE NANJAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
PLAINTIFF NO.2 HAD NO ISSUED
PLAINTIFF NOS.1 AND 3 ARE THE LRS.
SRI.K. VENKATARAMANAPP
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
S/O LATE KASI NAGAPPA
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)
1. SRI.V.CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1(A) SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
R/AT NO. 153, JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
1(B) SRI. RAVIKUMAR
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
R/AT NO. 153, JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
1(C) SMT. RADHA, AGED 31 YEARS
W/O RAJAPPA
D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
R/AT NO. 153, JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
6
(THE LRS OF APPELLNAT NO.1 NAMELY 1(A)
TO 1(C) ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED: 03.02.2021
ACCORDINGLY CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED)
SRI. BALAKRISHNA
(DECEASED)
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
(SINCE DECEASED AND UNMARRIED
REP. BY OTHER LRS HEREIN)
SRI.V.MUNIRAJA, (DECEASED)
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
(SINCE DECEASED AND UNMARRIED
REP. BY OTHER LRS HEREIN)
SRI.V.VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
SINCE DIED ON 17.10.2013 AFTER DECREE
UNMARRIED AND HENCE NO HEIRS)
2. SRI.V.BABU
AGED ABOTU 40 YEARS.
3. SRI.V. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
APPELLANTS NOS(1) TO (3) ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 153, JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
SMT. RATHANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
(SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS)
4. A.M.SHIVA RAJ KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
5. SRI.M.BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
BOTH 4 AND 5 ARE SONS OF
LATE RATHNAMMA AND A.V. MUNISWAMY.
6. SRI. A.V. MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
H/O SMT. RATHNAMMA.
7
APPELLANTS NO. 4 TO 6 ARE
RESIDENTS OF DAMMULA GUDISALU
DIGGUR VILLAGE, PERISANDRA
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK.
ALSO TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT
NO. 153, JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
7. SMT. SHOBHA, AGED 37 YEARS
W/O SRINIVASA
R/AT GUDIBANDA, BAGEPALLI
KOLAR DISTRICT.
....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
(SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS)
1. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
(SINCE DECEASED)
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH.
(THE RESPONDENTS NOS.2,3,4 ARE THE LRS
OF LATE RAMAKRISHNA ARE ALREADY ON RECORD
ACCORDINGLY, A NOTE IS MADE IN THE CAUSE TITLE
VIDE ORDER DATED: 03.02.2021)
2. MS. NEELA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
3. MS. DIVYA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
4. MS. SUSHMA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
NO.2 TO 4 ARE DAUGHTERS
OF SRI. RAMAKRISHNA AND
8
GRAND DAUGHTERS OF
LATE SEETHRAMAIAH
NOS.1(A) TO (D) ARE RESIDING AT
NO.153, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 005.
5. SMT. SHANTHA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O LATE KODANDA
(DECEASED SON OF LT. SEETHARAMAIAH)
6. SRI. DHARMENDRA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O LATE KODANDA
GRAND SON OF SEETHRAMAIAH.
7. MRS. NAVANITHA @ MONIKA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
8. MS. DEVI
AGED ABOUT YEARS
BOTH RESPONDENTS NO. 7 AND 8
ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE KODANDA
GRAND DAUGHTERS OF
LATE SEETHARAMAIAH.
ALL ARE RESIDING UNDER
C/O. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
IN PORTION OF NO. 153, JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
9. SMT. SHARADA(SINCE DECEASED)
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
D/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH.
9(A) SRI. UMESH, MAJOR
S/O LATE SHARADA
NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT
OPP:,. LIC OFFICE, WARD NO. 15
BHARATHI NAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPURA.
9(B) SMT. MADHVADI, MAJOR
D/O LATE SHARADA
NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT
9
OPP: LIC OFFICE, WARD NO. 15
BHARATHI NAGARA, CHIKKABHALLAPUR
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DT: 08.10.2021)
(THE LRS OF RESPONDENT NO.9 NAMELY 9(A) & 9(B)
ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT: 08.10.2021
ACCORDINGLY CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED)
10. SMT. CHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH
BOTH NOS.9 AND 10 ARE
R/O CHIKKABALLAPURA, NOW
C/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
PORTION OF NO. 153, JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SR. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-3, R-4, & R-7,
V/O/DT: 03.02.2021 R-2 TO R-4 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF
THE DECEASED R-1;
SRI. H.S. RAMAMURTHY, ADV., FOR R-5, R-6, & R-8)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W O. 41 OF
CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 02.01.2013
PASSED IN O.S.NO. 15400/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII
ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.15400/2000 by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court"), whereby the said suit for 10 declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties was partly decreed by the trial Court only in so far as the suit 'A' schedule property was concerned and the suit in respect of the suit 'B' schedule property was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. RFA No.775/2013 is preferred by the appellants- legal representatives of defendant Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree in so far as it relates to decreeing the suit in respect of suit 'A' schedule property.
3. RFA No.481/2014 is preferred by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree in so far as it relates to dismissing the suit in respect of suit 'B' schedule property.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit, the defendants filed their written 11 statement and contested the suit pursuant to which the trial Court framed the following issues.
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are absolute owners of schedule A and B properties?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is not the legal heir of late Badagi Ramaiah @ Muniramaiah?
3) Whether the defendant proves that he is the absolute owner of a portion of suit schedule property pertaining to A schedule?
4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the documents pertaining to A and B properties in the name of defendant is fabricated?
5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for?
6) What order or decree?
6. Plaintiff No.1(f) examined himself as PW.1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P-1 to P-37 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1(a) was examined as DW.1 and documentary evidence at Exs.D-1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the defendants. As stated supra, while the trial Court decreed the suit in respect of 'A' schedule 12 property, the suit in respect of 'B' schedule property was dismissed aggrieved by which the parties have preferred the aforesaid respective appeals.
7. In RFA No.775/2013, the appellants have filed an application, I.A.No.1/2022 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permission to produce additional evidence. In RFA No.775/2013, the appellants have filed I.A.Nos.1/2019 and 2/2019, both applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permission to adduce additional evidence/documents.
8. The following points arise for my consideration in the present appeal:
i. Whether I.A.No.1/2022 filed in RFA No.775/2013 and I.A.Nos.1/2019 and 2/2019 filed in RFA 481/2014 deserve to be allowed?
ii. Whether the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court warrants
interference by this Court in the present appeal?13
Re. Point No.i:
9. The material on record discloses that while the plaintiffs are aggrieved by rejection of their claim in respect of suit 'B' schedule property, defendants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court upholding the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit 'A' schedule property. It is contended by both sides that the documents produced by them enable the respective parties to substantiate their claim/defences in the suit and that despite exercise of due diligence, it was not possible for them to adduce the said evidence before the trial Court, which is relevant and material for the purpose of establishing their respective claims. In this context, it is relevant to state that a perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree as well as the documents sought to be produced along with the aforesaid applications, I.A.No.1/2022, I.A.Nos.1/2019 and 2/2019 and the rival contentions urged by both sides will clearly indicate that the documents produced by them are relevant and material not only for the purpose of 14 disposal of the appeals, but also for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. Further, the affidavits filed by both sides in support of their respective aforesaid applications also indicate that valid and sufficient grounds have been made out by them to establish as to why they could not produce the said additional evidence before the trial Court. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in order to provide one more opportunity to the parties to produce additional evidence in support of their respective claims, particularly when the documents sought to be produced by them which undisputedly relate to the suit schedule properties and are also relevant and material to substantiate their contentions, it is just and proper to permit the appellants in both the appeals to produce the documents by way of additional evidence. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 in RFA NO.775/2013 and I.A.Nos.1/2019 and 2/2019 in RFA No.781/2014 are hereby allowed and the documents produced with the applications are received on record.
15
Point No.i is answered accordingly.
Re. point No.ii:
10. After having come to the conclusion that the aforesaid I.A.No.1/2022 in RFA NO.775/2013 and I.A.Nos.1/2019 and 2/2019 in RFA No.781/2014 deserve to be allowed and the documents are received on record, the next question that arises for consideration is the procedure to be followed for the purpose of disposal of the appeals. In this context, it would be necessary to extract Order 41 Rule 28 CPC, which reads as under
"28. Mode of taking additional evidence.- Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the Appellate Court may either take such evidence or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, or any other subordinate Court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the Appellate Court."
11. The material on record indicates that having regard to the nature of documents now allowed to be produced by way of additional evidence and the various contentious issues and disputed questions of fact and law that 16 arise for consideration between the parties, it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the trial Court for re-consideration afresh by leaving open all contentions on merits on all aspects to be adjudicated by the trial Court in accordance with law.
12. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER i. RFA No.775/2013 and RFA No.481/2014 are hereby allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated 01.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.No.15400/2000 by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.
iii. I.A.No.1/2022 filed in RFA No.775/2013 is hereby allowed and the documents produced along with the same are received on record. iv. I.A.No.1/2019 and 2/2019 filed in RFA No.481/2014 are also hereby allowed and the 17 documents produced along with the same are received on record.
v. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
vi. Registry to transmit the trial Court records as
well as the aforesaid applications
I.A.No.1/2022 in RFA.No.775/2013 and
I.A.Nos.1/2019 and 2/2019 in RFA
No.481/2014 along with the documents
produced with the same to the Trial Court, forthwith.
vii. Liberty is reserved in favour of all the parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.
viii. All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
ix. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as 18 possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
x. The parties undertake to appear before the trial Court on 16.08.2022 without awaiting further notice from the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMC