SRI G MANJUNATHA v. SMT SAKAMMA A
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Summary
A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.
Precedent status
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.
Original judgment text
(BY SRI. R. HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT SAKAMMA A AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O. LATE K V GURUVA REDDY R/A KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-560102. …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27346 WP No. 42471 of 2019 HC-KAR
2. A. SRI. LAKSHMANA M S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA MAJOR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O. LATE M. LAKSHMANA, MAJOR IN AGE, B. SMT. SHOBHA D/O. LATE M. LAKSHMANA, MAJOR IN AGE, C. SMT. REKHA D/O. LATE M. LAKSHMANA, MAJOR IN AGE, D. SMT. VEDA D/O. LATE M. LAKSHMANA, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.2A TO 2D ARE R/AT NO.F-1, 1ST FLOOR, KRISHNA KUNJ APARTMENT 3RD MAIN, ATTIGUPPE BENGALURU - 560 040
3. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARIAH MAJOR IN AGE, S/O. SHANKARAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS A. SMT. PANKAJA, W/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARIAH, MAJOR IN AGE, - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27346 WP No. 42471 of 2019 HC-KAR B. MR. VIJAY S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARIAH, AGE IN MAJOR, C. MISS CHANDANA D/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARIAH, AGED IN MAJOR, NO.3 A TO C R/A KODEHOLA VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 109.
4. SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/A NO.547, 9TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.
5. SMT. H.G. JAYALAKSHMAMA W/O. LATE M.B. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/A NO.547, 9TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.
11. SRI. PRADEEP KRISHNA S/O. M. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.2937/38-E, SERVICE ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 040. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27346 WP No. 42471 of 2019 HC-KAR
12. M/S. S.N.N. PROPERTIES (UP) A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. SHAH SANJAY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RAJ LAKE VIEW, NO.3761, 29TH MAIN ROAD, BTM 2ND STAGE, N.S. PALYA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.
13. SRI. PRIYA KRISHNA S/O. M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.2937/38-E, SERVICE ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (R1, R2(a) TO R2(d), R3(a) TO R3(C) R5 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.2024, NOTICE TO R4, R6 TO R8 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/ QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRIDT AT ANEKAL IN O.S.NO.109/2006 (OLD O.S.NO.972/1995) I.A.NO.29 AS PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-G IN THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27346 WP No. 42471 of 2019 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
06.08.2019 passed on I.A.No.29 in O.S.No.109 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Anekal (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court').
2. Sri R. Hemanthraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition and other reliefs. In the said suit, defendant No.7 was impleaded on 29.03.2019 and he filed written statement. Later, the plaintiffs came to know about the sale of the some of the suit schedule properties in favour of different persons. Hence, filed an application, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs can take protection under Doctrine of Lis pendens. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27346 WP No. 42471 of 2019 HC-KAR
3. It is submitted that even as per the Doctrine of Lis pendens, bare pleadings in the plaint are required to be brought on record before the Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by permitting the petitioners to bring the facts before the Trial Court.
4. Though the respondents are served, there is no representation.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and meticulously perused the material on record.
6. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.109 of 2006 for the relief of partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying assertions made by the plaintiffs. The defendant No.7 is claiming to be the purchaser of some of the properties and has filed an application for impleadment, which came to be allowed and he was impleaded on 29.03.2019. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27346 WP No. 42471 of 2019 HC-KAR
7. It is the assertion of the petitioners that, based on the written statement of defendant No.7, the plaintiffs have came to know about various transactions with regard to items No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties and sought amendment of the pleadings. The Trial Court, considering the same, rejected the said application.
8. In my considered view, the Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application only on the ground that the petitioners can take protection under Doctrine of Lis Pendens and the said approach of the Trial Court is justified.
9. However, with regard to various transactions which have been referred by the plaintiffs in the proposed amendment, the same are required to be brought on record in the form of pleadings. In my considered view the addition of prayer sought in the plaint at paragraph 3 of the application cannot be allowed.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27346 WP No. 42471 of 2019 HC-KAR ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. ii) The impugned order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Anekal, is set aside. iii) The application-IA.No.29 filed by petitioners/plaintiffs is allowed in part. iv) The amendment to the plaint sought to insert additional pleadings at paragraph 6 is allowed and additional prayer at paragraph 8 is rejected. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18