Writ Petition No. 9660 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3293 WP No. 9660 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 9660 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SUNANDAMMA D/O MUNIYAAPPA, W/O SRI NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT MYLAPURA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT CHINNAMMA D/O MUNIYAPPA, W/O SRI B V LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT GUNJURU PALYA VILLAGE, GUNJUR HOBLI, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560087. (BY SRI. A S NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(a) SMT. ANJINAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3293 WP No. 9660 of 2017 1(b) SMT. MANASA D/O LATE RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT R/AT GUNJURPALYA VILLAGE, GUNJURU POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560087 2. SRI RAGHUNANDA S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SMT RENUKAMMA W/O LATE RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 4. SRI VENKATESH S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, THE PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT GUNJURPALYA VILLAGE, GUNJURU POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560087. 5. SMT SUMITHRA W/O SRI HARISH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT C/O (HEAD MASTER MUNIYAPPA) BESTHARA BEEDI, MARKET ROAD, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114. 6. SRI GOPALAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3293 WP No. 9660 of 2017 R/AT GUNJURU PALYA, GUNJUR POST, VARTHUR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560087. 7. SRI R RAMESH S/O SRI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT GUNJURU PALYA, GUNJUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560087. 8. SRI A R SHANKAR REDDY S/O LATE A V RAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.130, AGARA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560068. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 07.11.2019 NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 IS H/S; VIDE ORDER DATED 9.3.2022 ARCHANA K.M. IS APPRINTED AS AMICUS CUIAE FOR R5 & R7 & ALSO TAKES NOTICE FOR R5 IS & R7; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2024 PETITION DISMISSED AGAINST R6; SRI. VENKATARAMANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R8; R1(A) SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; SRI. S. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B)) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 3.2.2017 VIDE ANNEX-A IN O.S.NO.18/2015 ON JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND R-1 TO 4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3293 WP No. 9660 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in O.S.No.18/2015 dated 03.02.2017 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit is filed seeking partition and separate possession and also seeking 2/7th share in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are item Nos.1 to 7. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the family members. Defendant Nos.6 and 7 are the subsequent purchasers, who have purchased suit item Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 except item No.3 other properties are purchased by defendant Nos.6, 7 and 8. In respect of item No.3 is concerned, there is no claim with regard to the purchase and the father that is defendant No.1 had paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the plaintiffs and the family members have entered into compromise by filing a joint memo by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4. The suit against defendant Nos.1 to 4 in respect of suit item No.3 is dismissed and as per the said joint memo, the properties are allotted to defendant No.1, but - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3293 WP No. 9660 of 2017 in the order, it was held that the joint memo filed the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 dated 22.07.2016 is allowed and consequently, the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 4 joint in respect of suit schedule item No.3 is dismissed. Further, it was held that if at all the plaintiffs succeed in the suit in future, the suit schedule item No.3 has to be allotted to the plaintiffs’ share as far as possible. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners submits that the Trial Court without any basis and contrary to the joint memo filed by the parties had passed such an order. A Co-Ordiante Bench of this Court by order dated 09.03.2022 had appointed Smt. Archana K.M., as Amicus Curiae to represent respondent Nos.5 and 7 and as far as respondent No.1(b) is concerned, learned counsel has represented and the other family members though notice is served are unrepresented. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court ought not to have given such a finding which is contrary to the joint memo. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1(b) also submits that as per the joint memo, the arrangement, the understanding and the compromise between the parties, it is allotted to defendant No.1 i.e., the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3293 WP No. 9660 of 2017 father of the petitioners. Now, he is represented by the wife and the granddaughter. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that as far as their claim is concerned, it is with regard to the other properties, but not concerned with suit item No.3 of the suit schedule properties and the interest of defendant Nos.5 and 7 is not involved in the case. As far as respondent No.6 is concerned, the writ petition is dismissed. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, basing on the compromise memo when the claim in respect of item No.3 of the properties, the plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed and as per the compromise, when defendant No.1 pays the amount, the Trial Court ought not to have observed anything except recording the compromise, as per the joint memo filed by him. As far as respondent No.5 is concerned, it is stated that respondent No.5 is not a party to the joint memo. When the respondent No.5 is not a party to the joint memo and if respondent No.5 is aggrieved by any order passed, respondent No.5 could have come before the Court. Admittedly, that is not assailed before the Court. In view of the same, this Court is passing the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3293 WP No. 9660 of 2017
Decision
ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. ii. The operative portion of the order passed in O.S.No.18/2015 dated 03.02.2017 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is modified and the observation “It is further ordered that if at all the plaintiffs succeed in the suit in future, the suit schedule item No.3 has to be allotted to the plaintiffs’ share as far as possible”, is set aside. iii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28