(BY SRI: SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE) v. VEERABHADRA SWAMY

(BY SRI: SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

1. SRI. N. MUNINARAYANA REDDY SON OF LATE SREENAGARA NANJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT MUNIKOLALU VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 037

2. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O M. VEERAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O BEHIND SUBBAIAH COLONY, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34 WP No. 39132 of 2014 GURUMURTHY LAYOUT, MURUGESHPALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE - 560 017 SMT. V.G. NEELAMMA W/O. LATE VEERAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SRI. V. VEERABHADRA SWAMY S/O. LATE VEERAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS MS. V. GAYATHRI DEVI D/O. LATE VEERAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS MR. V. SOMANATH SWAMY S/O. LATE VEERAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 6 R/O. NO. 186, VISHVANILAYA, MURUGESHPALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE - 560 017 SMT. V. SHAMALA D/O. LATE VEERAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O. NO.1, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 027 MRS. KALYANAMMA W/O. LATE VEERAPPA REDDY, AGE: MAJOR MR. V. SUNDHINDRA S/O. LATE VEERAPPA REDDY, AGE: MAJOR

10. MRS. SOUMYA D/O. LATE VEERAPPA REDDY, AGE: MAJOR - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34 WP No. 39132 of 2014 RESPONDENTS NO. 8 TO 10 R/O. DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 106 M/S. RAKESH BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. RAJIVKUMAR JAIN, AGE: MAJOR, NO. 58, SILVER JUBLIEE PARK ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052 MR. G. RAMACHANDRA REDDY S/O. GURUMURTHYREDDY AGE: 66 YEARS R/O. MUNEKOLALA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 560 087 MRS. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. K.S. MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O. MUNEKOLALA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 087 MRS. T. SHANTHAMMA W/O. OORMANDALA NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O. MUNEKOLALA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 087. MR. ARIYAPPA S/O. LATE MR. YELAPPA MAJOR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

15. (A) SMT. YELAMMA W/O. LATE ARIYAPPA MAJOR - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34 WP No. 39132 of 2014

15. (B) SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O. LATE ARIYAPPA MAJOR

15. (C) GOWRAMMA D/O. LATE ARIYAPPA MAJOR

15. (D) SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O. LATE ARIYAPPA MAJOR

15. (E) SRI. GANESH S/O. LATE ARIYAPPA MAJOR

15. (F) SRI. GOPAL S/O. LATE ARIYAPPA MAJOR

15. (G) SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. LATE ARIYAPPA MAJOR

15. (H) SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O. LATE ARIYAPPA MAJOR

15. (I) SMT. SHARADAMMA D/O. LATE ARIYAPPA MAJOR R/O. MUENKOLALA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 560 087

16. M. GOVINDA REDDY, S/O. MR. DODDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

16. (A) SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O. LATE GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34 WP No. 39132 of 2014

16. (B) SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O. GOPAL REDDY D/O. LATE GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

16. (C) SRI. MANJUNATH REDDY S/O. LATE GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

16. (D) SRI. RAMESH REDDY S/O. LATE GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.16 (A) TO 16(D) R/O. BEHIND AXIX BANK, MARATHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 37

16. (E) SMT. SHYAMALA D/O. LATE GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O. NO.3, RAMAIAH REDDY BUILDING, OPP: TO ABBAIAH REDDY LAYOUT, KAGGADASAPURA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 93

18. MRS. GOWRAMMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA AGE: 75 YEARS R/O. MUNEKOLALA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 087 MRS. SAKAMMA W/O. PATEL R. KRISHNA REDDY, AGE: 70 YEARS R/O. MUNEKOLALA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 560 087. …RESPONDENTS - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34 WP No. 39132 of 2014 (BY SRI: SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI: S.A. SAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R10 SMT: T.G. SUDHA, ADVOCATE FOR R15(A-I) SRI: NANJUNDARADHYA B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R11 R1, R12 TO R14, R16(A-E) - SERVED V/O DT. 28/8/23, NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 & R8 ARE H/S V/O DT. 27/9/23 NOTICE TO R17 HIS H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 01.04.2014 ONE PASSED BY THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE, IN O.S.763/2005 (CCH-39) ON AN APPLICATION I.A.3,4,6 AND 10 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS WHICH IS IMPUGNED HEREIN VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in OS.No.763/2005 on the file of learned XXXVIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (herein after referred to as the Trial Court for brevity) are impugning the order dated 01.04.2014 and seeking partition and separate possession of several items of properties.

2. Heard Sri. Sunil S Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Shirish Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri. S.A.Sami, learned counsel for respondent - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34 WP No. 39132 of 2014 Nos.8 to 10, Smt. T.G.Sudha, learned counsel for respondent No.15(A-I), Sri. Nanjundaradhya B.G., learned counsel for respondent No.11.

3. During the pendency of the suit, IA Nos.3, 4, 6 and 10 were came to be filed seeking amendment of plaint and impleading of additional defendants. The said applications were opposed by defendant No.2, who is the contesting defendant. It is stated that husband of defendant No.2 is the purchaser of the one of the item property from defendant No.1 under the registered sale deed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since few items of properties were leftout from seeking partition while filing the suit, necessary applications were filed to include those items of properties and since in the meantime, some of the items were already sold in favour of third party, purchasers were requested to be made as parties. The Trial Court erroneously dismissed both applications without any reasons. Therefore, prays for allowing the application.

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposing the application submitted that the husband of - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34 WP No. 39132 of 2014 defendant No.2 purchased the property on 02.12.1974 after the said property was allotted to the share of defendant No.1 under the partition deed dated 18.10.1974. Since defendant no.1 got the property under the partition deed, it is his self acquired property and the plaintiffs are not having any manner of right, title or interest over the same.

6. Learned counsel also submitted that in the plaint there is reference to partition deed dated 18.10.1974, which means to say that plaintiffs were aware of the partition. Inspite of that they have not chosen to include those items of properties in the plaint and apparently, they have given up their right over the same. There is inordinate delay in filing the application and hence, Trial Court rightly rejected the application.

7. Perused the materials on record including the trail Court records.

8. It is undisputed fact that the suit for partition came to be filed by the plaintiffs in respect of few items of properties. Now the application IA No.3 is filed to include few more items of properties, which were allotted to the share of defendant - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34 WP No. 39132 of 2014 No.1 in the partition deed dated 18.10.1972. It is not in dispute that there is reference to the said partition deed in the plaint. Therefore, plaintiffs have to explain as to why they have not included the said properties in the plaint and they have to satisfy the Court regarding limitation. The plaintiffs are also required to satisfy the Trial Court regarding their right over the properties that are requested to be included by way of amendment and the same are allotted to the share of defendant in partition deed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits no objections for the Trial Court to frame preliminary issues regarding maintainability of the suit against defendant No.2, who is the subsequent purchaser for value and also regarding limitation and to hear the same as preliminary issues.

10. Since the question of limitation is involved in filing the application for seeking amendment of plaint, I deem it appropriate to allow the applications IA Nos.3, 4, 6 and 10 permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to implead respondents as additional defendants. However, it is made clear that the amendment shall come into effect from the date - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:34 WP No. 39132 of 2014 of the application. The Trial Court shall frame necessary issues regarding maintainability of the suit against defendant No.2 and also regarding limitation and shall treat the same as preliminary issues. Hence, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Applications IA No.3 under order 6 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC, IA No.4 under order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 of CPC, IA No.6 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC and IA No.10 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC are allowed. iii. Petitioners are permitted to amend the plaint and to implead additional defendants as sought for. iv. The Trial Court is directed to frame the issues and to treat the same as preliminary issues. Since the suit is of the year 2005, both the parties shall co-operate with the Trial Court to expediate the matter. Sd/- JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31