SMT. S. SUNANDAMMA v. MYSURU CITY CORPORATION

Sri. Seetharamegowda (deceased) happens to be Propositus of her Joint family. Schedule property is her ancestral, joint and undivided family property. In the absence of division and partition by and amongst us schedule property happens to be her joint family. The proposed respondent further stated that, Government of Karnataka represented by Deputy Commissioner attempted to usurp schedule property. Her father and her senior paternal uncle had to take up legal crusade against Government of Karnataka under legal canopy of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The original suit under reference No. O.S 366/2002 and O.S. 367/2002 have been allowed by The Hon'ble Court of First Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru, vide Judgments and Decrees dated 08.02.2021 respectively. The proposed respondent stated that, except her joint family none have any sort of right or interest over schedule property. On

19.09.2021 she observed disturbance in schedule property created by Appellant and others. Their awful acts prompted her to verify records of joint family properties by virtue of which she learnt about their unscrupulous and draconian attempts to usurp and knock off schedule property by concocting and fabricating fraud and fraudulent documents. She has not executed any documents involving suit schedule property in favour of anybody to which phrase appellant and others are no exception. The vexatious claim of appellant and others based on - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 fabricated and doctored documents against an arena of schedule property is perse void-ab-initio and void- ipsojure.

Physical possession of schedule property is with her possession of schedule property is with her joint family. AS the member of joint family she is also in physical possession of schedule property. Further, she stated that, she did not has knowledge about dubious and void documents till 18.10.2021 i.e., date of filing of documents and service of the same before The Hon'ble VI ASCJ Mysuru in O.S. No.940/2021 and also service of documents upon her. She is not a party to said void documents. On account of their voidness, they never and ever had legal enforceability, existence and legal vogue. Further, she stated that, dubious suggestions of alleged conferment of physical possession of appellant and others over alleged arena of suit schedule property in above referred void documents are perse sham, spurious and onerous. By any wind of manipulation, appellant and others have no locus standi even to suggest of having physical possession over any arena of schedule property based on void documents. The fraudulent and dubious alleged documents of assessment forged with MCC are fabricated based on void documents. Hence unenforceable and do not convey any legitimate meaning.

Further she stated that, she is not a party to above referred void documents and compromise decree. Without conceding the case of the appellant and others and without prejudice to her rights, it is her humble - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 submission that, by any wind of manipulation, unlawful a n d i l l e g a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t a n d o t h e r s c a n n o t b e misinterpreted that possession of schedule property is in their alleged bastion. Schedule property is in her joint possession as it happens to be her joint family property. Illegal construction with the help of goondas and antisocial elements does not fit within realm of legal/lawful possession envisaged in established principles of Law, Rule of Law and Rule by Law. It is further humble submission on oath that physical possession of the property is absolutely attributable to her and her joint family. Appellant and a few others had initiated ludicrous and grotesque original suits in O.S. 261/2023 to O.S. No. 266/2023 against MCC the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. She presented impleading application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C.

1908. They felt pinch of defeat and got above cases dismissed.

Further she stated that, stand point of above referred sacred facts and whole truth nothing but truth she is entitled to come on record as a party Respondent No.3 to defend the alleged claim of appellant as she is a necessary and proper party. Further the proposed respondent stated that, appeal under challenge is not maintainable as the presentation of the same is barred by Law in vogue. She shall make every endeavour in drawing the kind attention of The Hon'ble Court regarding non-maintainability of appeal and regarding its frivolity. In the said back drop also, she is proper and necessary party of the appeal. - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023

The Hon'ble High Court Karnataka, in my MFA 7 81 1/20 22 w as fu rthe r p lea sed to pas s imma c u late o rde r in axiomatically impleading MCC as a party respondent in her MFA. Before this appeal frivolous original suits were filled before PCJ and JMFC Mysuru. She had filed impleading application in the said original suit. After realizing defeat same were withdrawn. Likewise, MA 33 to MA 40/2023 were preferred before this court. She filed impleading application and filed several objection statements to vexatious applications of appellants. She provided maximum assistance to this court in administration of justice which resulted in dismissal of amendment application vide judicious and immaculate order dated

20.04.2023 rendered by The Hon'ble Court of PCJ Mysuru. On 21.04.2023 all dubious appeals were withdrawn. By such humble endeavour she has already demonstrated before this court that, she is proper and necessary party. She has also lodged Caveat before The Hon'ble Vacation Court. Further she stated that, she will be put to grave hardship and injury in the event of rejection of her prayer. Appellant will not be jeopardized, if her impleading application is allowed.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is her earnest appeal to this court that her impleading application may kindly be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.

On the other hand the appellant has filed objections stating that, the application filed by the proposed respondent No 3 is not maintainable either - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 in law or on facts and as such the very application deserves to be dismissed in limine. The applicant is set up by her father and her cousin brother to file this false application and the very application is a collusive application and as such the very application deserves to be dismissed. The appellant had purchased the site property from the grandfather, father and paternal uncle of the proposed respondent No.3 in the year 1980. The proposed respondent was not a coparcener as on the year 1980. The coparcenary right to female was brought by way of amendment to section 6 of Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005. The proposed respondent No.3 was not having right over the property bearing survey No. 155/1 and 159/1, in the year 1980 and the property bearing survey No. 155/1 and 159/1 was sold to the appellant and other various purchasers by the grandfather, father and paternal uncle of the proposed respondent No.3 in the year 1980 itself.

The proposed respondent No.3 had not challenged the sale made by her grandfather, father and paternal uncle of the proposed respondent within three years from the date of sale. The proposed respondent No.3 has been setup by her father and cousin brother to file a suit for partition on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Mysuru in OS. No. 940/2021. The proposed respondent No.3 had maintained interim application to restrain the appellant and others herein from interfering in the peaceful possession of the land bearing survey No. 155/1 and 159/1 in OS. No. 940/2021 and the said application was contested by this - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 appellant and on merits the application filed by the proposed respondent No.3 herein was dismissed.

The proposed respondent No.3 had preferred a miscellaneous first appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 7811/2022 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that If respondents are constructing on suit property without building license and plan same would be open for appropriate authorities to take action against the same and mere pendency of this appeal would not come in way of authority taking action against same'. The Mysore City Corporation is not a party to the MFA No. 7811/2022 and as such the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka cannot pass order directing the Mysore City Corporation to take necessary action who is not a party to the miscellaneous appeal. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has not observed to demolish the houses constructed in the land bearing survey No. 155/1 and 159/1, as matter stood thus the proposed respondent No. 3 has sworn to a false affidavit. The proposed respondent No 3 has not approached this Hon'ble court with clean hands and as such the very application under objection is liable to be dismissed in limine.

The proposed respondent No. 3 or her family members are the owners of the property bearing Sy No. 155/1 and 159/1 as the family of the proposed respondent No. 3 has sold the property bearing Sy No 155/1 and 159/1 in the year 1980 itself in favour of various purchasers and as such the question of impleading in the present appeal by the proposed respondent No. 3 does not - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 arise.

The proposed respondent No. has no right to bring the application under objection as the grandfather, paternal uncle and father of the proposed respondent No.3 had sold property bearing Sy No. 155/1 and 159/1 to various persons by farming revenue sites and since 1980 the proposed respondent did not challenge the sale made by the grandfather, paternal uncle and father of the proposed respondent No.3 and as such the very application filed by the proposed respondent No. 3 under objection does not survive for consideration. The only course for the proposed respondent No 3 herein is to succeed in the partition suit filed by her on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Mysuru in OS. No. 940/2021. The appellant submits that the suit in OS. No. 940/2021 filed by the proposed respondent No 3 herein is not maintainable under law as the very suit is hit by section 6 Hindu succession Amended Act 2005. The proposed respondent No 3 has sworn to a false affidavit and the proposed respondent No 3 has not made out any case against the appellant herein. Hence the application filed by the proposed respondent No. 3 is liable to be rejected.

The matter in issue is between the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 and the proposed respondent No.3 is not a necessary party to the appeal as the order dated 24/3/2023 is made by the respondents 1 and 2 against the appellant and as such the proposed respondent No.3 is not a necessary party to the appeal and the proposed respondent No.3 is stranger to the appeal as matter stood thus the very application - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 under objection is liable to be dismissed in limine. The appellant has not sought any relief against the proposed respondent No.3 in the appeal and as such, the very the application deserves to be dismissed.

For the above reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the application with cost.

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

Now the points that arise for my consideration are that, 1) Whether the IA-III filed U/o 1 Rule 10 (2)R/w Sec. 151 of CPC is entitled to be allowed? 2) What Order?

My answers to the above points are as follows, Point No.1. In the Affirmative Point No. 2. As per final Order. :: REASONS::

Point No. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Mysuru City Corporation for setting aside the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Mysuru City Corporation Commissioner. The proposed respondent has filed this application stating that, she is proper and necessary party as she is the Co-owner of the property and that the appellant is a stranger to the suit property. It is further stated that, except her joint family, no one has any sort of right or interest over the schedule property. The appellant without any right has filed this appeal against the corporation without making the proposed respondent as respondent. It is further stated that, she - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 had prepared MFA before Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in MFA No. 7811/2022 and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed the Mysuru Cirty Corporation to take appropriate action against illegal and unlawlful construction in the schedule property.

The appellant contended that, he had purchased the suit property from the grand father, father and paternal Uncle of the proposed respondent No. 3, in the year 1980 and that she was not a coparcener as on the year 1980. The proposed respondent has no right to bring this application and that she is not a necessary party to the appeal. When the appellant states that, he had purchased the suit property from the grand father and father of the proposed respondent, the proposed respondent has rightly filed this application in order to contest the matter by coming on record as the respondent. Appellant also stated that, the proposed respondent or her family members are owners of the property bearing Sy. No. 155/1 and 159/1 as the family of the proposed respondent had sold the property in the year 1980, in favor of various purchasers. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relating to the schedule property on the basis of the appeal filed by proposed respondent, the proposed respondent necessary party to the proceedings of this appeal. By allowing this application, no harm or irreparable will be caused to the appellant. In fact, the participation of the proposed respondent will help in adjudicating the matter. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the IA-III needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer point No. 1 in affirmative. - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023

Point No. 2: - For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the ORDER IA-III filed U/o 1 Rule 10 (2) R/w Sec. 151 of CPC is allowed. The proposed respondent is added as respondent No.3 in the case. No costs.”

So also, while allowing I.A.No.7 the Appellate Court has held as under: “ORDER ON IA NO.VII U/O 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC This is an application filed U/o 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC, R/w Sec. 151 of CPC to permit the proposed respondents to come on record as respondent No. 4 and

The brief facts of the application accompanied with affidavit are that, the Appellant had preferred the Miscellaneous Appeal under challenge in challenging the Preliminary order passed by the Mysore City Corporation under Section 321 (3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 dated 13.03.2023, and the Very appeal was not maintainable and the same was contended by these Applicants/proposed respondents, in the earlier proceedings and thereafter words the Appellant herein had withdrawn the Appeal - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 and presented this present Appeal q u e s t i o n i n g t h e o r d e r d a t e d 2 4 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 , m a d e i n R e f No.My.Na.Pali.vaka- 05/C.Ajne/142/2022 -23. And the same is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed by this court.

The proposed respondents No. 4 and 5 are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the property more fully described in the schedule annexed to this Affidavit, But, there was a dispute between proposed respondents us and the Government of Karnataka I.e., the competent authority under the urban land ceiling authority. Under date 09.05.1987, the Deputy commissioner passed the order under the provision of section 10(1) and (3) of the ULC Act, and the same was questioned before the Divisional Commissioner u/s 33 of the ULC Act, and the same was allowed and the same was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner.

It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the ULC Proceedings, the Repeal Act, of 1999, came into force, therefore the possession of the scheduled property is protected by virtue of Section 3 (2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Re p e a l A c t , 1 9 99 . Un de r t h e s a id s it u a t io n th e De pu t y Commissioner, Mysuru was interfering with the possession of the applicant and further, there is the threat of dispossession. Therefore, the applicants herein were forced to approach the Civil court for a declaration that their right and possession are protected by - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 virtue of Section 3 (2) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, by filing O.S.No.366/2002 and O.S.No.367/2002, on the file of the I Addl. I Civil Judge and JMFC Mysuru.

5. It is submitted that, during the pendency of the above suit the Appellant herein and other persons started illegal construction on the scheduled property. Therefore, the Ex. Corporators of Mysuru Corporation by the name Cheluvegowda and Srikantamurthy and other citizens of Mysuru had filed the Public Interest litigation before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.13233/2010. Under cat 17.01.2011, it was disposed of by making the following observations which read as follows:- “ However, it is relevant to submit here only that the State is in possession of the above-stated extent of land and it is protecting the same, awaiting the decision of Court in the above said Civil Appeals. Thus, it is clear the allegations of the petitioners Respondent herein are not protecting the property and that some transactions are being taken between some persons in respect of said land, etc. is false and baseless. At the cost of the repetition, it is submitted that the above-stated extent of land is in the custody of Government and the Record of Rights in respect of that extent of land stands in the name of Government". A perusal of the averment made at Paragraphs- 4, reveals the possession, of the land in question, is with the Government, and that no tress-pass - 20 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 over the same is being permitted.

6. Further, it is submitted that, as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P.No.17385/2021, dated, 1 1.03 .2022 , the y hav e ma de rep re sen tat io n dated , 28.03.2022, addressed the Respondent No.2, Thasildar. But, Respondent No.2 - Thasildar, even after four months also no action is taken to change the Katha as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the were forced to approach the H o n ' b l e H i g h C o u r t b y f i l i n g a c o n t e m p t p e t i t i o n i n C.C.C.No.720/ 2022, and after service of Notice from the contempt court. The Thasildar had issued an endorsement da ted , 05 .12 .2022 , st at ing th at th ey ha ve re je cte d the application that they have taken possession and it is government land.

7. The proposed respondents further submitted that, they are being aggrieved by the endorsement dated,

05.12.2022, issued by the Tahsildar, preferred the W.P.No.25137/2022, before the Hon'ble High Court the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated,

15.12.2022, granted the interim order of status quo, and the interim order is extended from time to time.

8. The proposed respondent submitted that, the competent authorities under the Urban Land Ceilings Act are either not protecting the land in question or changed the Revenue records in favour of this Proposed applicants, therefore, they have been forced - 21 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 to approach the Hon'ble High Court by filing a contempt petition in C.C.C.No.1/23, and the Hon'ble High court, and whereas the Competent authorities the urban land ceiling Act, i.e., Deputy Commissioner and Thasildar have appeared before the contempt court and filed their affidavit stating that they have protected the land in question. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed the order which reads as follows: - "Admittedly, the photographs to which the learned counsel for the complainants refers to are of February 2023 ad a statement is made in the affidavit about now stalling the construction activity and photographs produced in support of their statement are of April 2023. The counter affidavit is filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate dated 12.4.2023. As such, if it is a case of the complainants and the statement made in the affidavit is an untrue statement, the complainants may file an appropriate affidavit within six weeks".

9. Further it is submitted that, the Hon'ble High Court in M.F.A.No.7811/2022, Passed the order dated,

15.12.2022, which reads as follows: - "If respondents are constructing on suit property without building license and Plan, the same would be open for appropriate authorities to take action against same and mere pendency of this Appeal would not come - 22 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 in way of authority taking action against same.

10. The proposed respondents that, Respondent No.1, Corporation herein as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court had initiated and taken appropriate action against illegal construction being put up unlawfully in a portion of the s c h e d u le d p ro p e rt y . I l le g a l a n d u n la w f u l c o n s t ru c t io n surreptitiously undertaken by the appellant is devoid and bereft of Licence and approved Plan from MCC. Dubious construction is ex-facie illegal and unlawful. MCC/ Respondents issued a primary Notice dated

31.01.2023 and a final notice dated 06.02.2023 against illegal construction and for removal of the same. Followed preliminary/Provisional order dated 13.03.2023. And, now the corporation authorities rightly passed the order dated,24.03.2023 by confirming the provisional order. And, the same is questioned by the Appellant herein, and even before this court, the appellants not even produced any documents in respect of her title and possession and sanctioned plan and license. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in violation of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

11. Further they state that, MCC issued such notices as per the Rule of Law. MCC may or may not defend the appeal effectively. But they are the joint owner of the scheduled property will defend a dubious claim of the - 23 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 Appellant tooth and nail in order to hall justice and Law. Hence, they are the proper and necessary party the Appeal. They will provide maximum assistance to the this Court for effective and complete adjudication of Appeal on the Board.

12. Further proposed respondents state that, the alleged subject matter of the suit under challenge pertains to their joint family property. It is their yeoman effort and endeavor that prompted MCC/ Respondents to issue notices of stoppage of illegal construction and demolition of the same. Proposed respondents are directly affected by illegal and unlawful construction of the Appellant. Their rights are affected and we are necessary parties for the adjudication of the Appeal under challenge. Without their involvement and participation in legal proceedings, complete and effective adjudication cannot attain with. On the said score also, they are a proper and necessary party of the appeal under challenge.

13. Further proposed respondents state that, Schedule property is their ancestral, joint, and undivided family property. In the absence of division and partition by and amongst us scheduled property happens to be their joint family property. Further they state that, the Government of Karnataka represented by the Deputy Commissioner attempted to usurp scheduled property. The original suit under reference No. O.S 366/2002 AND 0.5 367/2002 has - 24 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 been allowed by the Hon'ble Court of First Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC AT Mysuru vide Judgments and Decrees dated 08.02.2021 respectively.

14. The proposed respondents state that, physical possession of the scheduled property is with their joint family. As a member of a joint family, they are in physical possession of the scheduled property. Further they state that, appeal under challenge is not maintainable and appellant has no concern for the property in question is a concern as the presentation of the same is barred by Law in vogue. Proposed respondents shall make every endeavor in drawing the kind attention of the Hon'ble Court regarding the non- maintainability of the appeal and regarding its frivolity. In the said backdrop also, we are the proper and necessary party of the appeal.

15. The proposed respondents submitted that, if this application is allowed no harm or injustice is caused to the other side interalia if this application is not allowed; They will be put to great hardship and the same cannot be compensated terms of money. Therefore, impleading application is required to be allowed.

16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the applicants to allow the accompanying application and permit them to come on record as additional Respondents No. 4 and 5, in the interest of equity and justice. - 25 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023

17. On the other hand, the appellant has filed objections stating that, The father of the proposed respondent No.4, proposed respondent No.4 and father of the proposed respondent No.5 in the year 1980 had sold the property belonging to them that is survey No. 155/1 and 159/1. The proposed respondents 4 and 5 are estopped from going contrary to their act of selling the agricultural property bearing survey No. 155/1 and 159/1, in the year 1980 in favour of various purchasers.

18. The proposed respondent No.4 and 5 is not having right over the property bearing survey No. 155/1 and 159/1. The property bearing survey No. 155/1 and 159/1 was sold by father of the proposed respondent No.4, proposed respondent No.4 and father of the proposed respondent No.5 to various purchasers by the proposed respondent No.4, proposed respondent No.4 and father of the proposed respondent No.5 in the year 1980 itself.

19. The purchasers of the agricultural property bearing Sy. No.155/1 and 159/1, had filed suits for specific performance in the year 2002 against the proposed respondent No. 4 and father of the proposed respondents No.5 and daughters of Seetharamaiah on the file of IV Additional I Civil Judge (Jr.Div) Mysore against and the suit have been decreed before Lok Adalath. The proposed respondents No.4 and father of the proposed respondent No.5 did not - 26 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 challenge the decree passed before the Lok Adalath till date and as such the decree passed by the Lok Adalath has attained finality.

20. The proposed respondents No.5 had also filed a writ petition (GM- POLICE) in WP. 26527/2009 against the state and the police and the said writ petition was disposed on 11/1/2010 wherein the Hon'ble High court has specifically observed that the matter between the plaintiff and the sites owner have ended compromise before the Lok Aadalath and if the 2nd plaintiff has any right it is always open for him to seek declaration in the competent court and dismissed the writ petition'. The proposed respondents No.5 has not challenged the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P 26527/2009 and as such the same is attained finality. The proposed respondent No.5 has not filed any suit for declaration till date as per the finding of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and as such the family of Seetharamaiah has no right or title over the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 155/1 and 159/1.

21. The proposed respondent No.4 and father of the proposed respondent No.5 had filed a suit for declaration in O.S. No. 366/2002 and 367/2002 against the Government of Karnataka and in the said suit the appellant and some of purchasers of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 155/ and 159/1 have made necessary application for impleading in - 27 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 O.S. No. 366/2002 and 367/2002 and the said application was allowed and later proposed respondent No.4 and father of the proposed respondent No.5 have challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 13978/2006 and WP No. 14328/2006 respectively. In the said writ petitions the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while disposing the said writ petitions have "observed that the judgment and decree passed in O.S No 366/2002 will not affect the respondents and the same is not binding on them. Further the respondents No 3 to 14 are entitled to protect their right in accordance with law". The proposed respondent No.4 and proposed respondent No.5 concealing the order passed by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP. No. 13978/2006 and WP, No. 14328/2006, have come up with false application. The proposed respondent No.4 and father of the proposed respondent No.5 are estopped going contrary to the observation made by the Hon'ble High court.

22. The proposed respondent No.4 and 5 had set up the daughter of the respondent No.4 herein to file a suit for partition on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Mysuru in OS. No. 940/2021. The proposed respondent No.3 who is the daughter of respondent No.4 had maintained interim application to restrain the appellant and others herein from interfering in the peaceful possession of the land bearing survey No. 155/1 and 159/1 in OS. No. 940/2021 and the said - 28 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 application was contested by this appellant and on merits the application filed by the proposed respondent No.3 herein was dismissed. The proposed respondents' No. 4 and 5 have not contested the suit filed by the daughter of the respondent No.4 by filing objections in OS No. 940/2021 the very act of the respondents 4 and 5 prima-facie establishes their collusiveness in setting up the proposed respondent No.3 to file the false suit in OS. No. 940/2021.

23. The proposed respondent No.3 had preferred a miscellaneous first appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 7811/2022 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that Ir respondents are constructing on suit property without building license and plan same would be open for appropriate authorities to take action against the same and mere pendency of this appeal would not come in way of authority taking action against same'. The proposed respondents No.4 and 5 has not revealed the fact that the proposed respondent No.4 and father of the proposed respondent No.5 and the father of the proposed respondent No. 4 had sold the land bearing survey No. 155/1 and 159/1, before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The proposed respondents No.4 and 5 has not approached this Hon'ble court with clean hands and as such the very application under objection is liable to be dismissed in limine. - 29 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023

24. The proposed respondent No. 4 and 5 or proposed respondent No.3 are the owners of the property bearing Sy No. 155/1 and 159/1, as the family of the proposed respondent No. 4 and 5 has sold the property bearing Sy. No 155/1 and 159/1 in the year 1980 itself in favour of various purchasers and as such the question of impleading in the present appeal by the proposed respondent No. 4 and 5 claiming to be owner of the land bearing survey No. 155/1 and 159/1 does not arise.

The proposed respondent No. 4 and 5 have not lodged any complaint to the MCC till date and as the very application filed by the proposed respondent No. 4 and 5 under objection does not survive for consideration. The proposed respondent No. 4 and 5 have sworn to a false affidavit and the proposed respondent No. 4 and 5 have no locus standi to the application under objection. Hence application filed by the proposed respondent No. 4 and 5 is liable to be rejected.

For the above reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the application with cost.

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

Now the points that arise for my consideration are that, 1) Whether the IA-VII filed U/o 1 Rule 10 (2) - 30 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC is entitled to be allowed? 2) What Order?

My answers to the above points are as follows, Point No.1. In the Affirmative Point No.2. As per final Order. :: REASONS::

Point No. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Mysuru City Corporation for setting aside the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Mysuru City Corporation Commissioner. The proposed respondents have filed this application stating that, they are proper and necessary parties as they are the absolute owners of the property and that the appellant is a stranger to the suit property. It is further stated that, except their joint family, no one has any sort of right or interest over the schedule property. The appellant without any right has filed this appeal against the corporation without making the proposed respondents as respondents. It is further stated that, they had prepared WP before Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP No.13233/2010 and WP No. 25137/2022 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 7811/2022 directed the Mysuru City Corporation to take appropriate action against illegal and unlawful construction the schedule property.

The appellant contended that, he had purchased the suit property fathers of proposed - 31 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 respondents No. 4 and 5 in the year 1980 and that they are estopped from going contrary to their act of selling the said properties in favour of various purchasers. The proposed respondents have no right to bring this application and that they are not necessary parties to the appeal. When the appellant stated that, he had purchased the suit property from the fathers of the proposed respondents , the proposed respondents have rightly filed this application in order to contest the matter by co ming on record as the re s p o n d e n t s . A p p e l la n t a ls o s t a t e d t h a t , t h e p ro p o s e d respondents or their family members are owners of the property bearing Sy. No. 155/1 and 159/1 as the family of the proposed respondents had sold the property in the year 1980, in favor of various purchasers. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relating to the schedule p r o p e r t y o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e a p p e a l f i l e d b y p r o p o s e d respondents , the proposed respondents are necessary parties to the proceedings of this appeal. By allowing this application, no harm or irreparable will be caused to the appellant. In fact, the p a rt ic ip a t io n o f t h e p ro p o s e d re s p o n d e n t s w i l l h e lp in adjudicating the matter. Hence, I am of the opinion that, IA-VII needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer point No. 1 in affirmative.

Point No. 2: - For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following, - 32 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 ORDER IA-VII filed U/o 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Sec. 151 of CPC is allowed. The proposed respondents are added as respondent No.4 and 5 in the case. No costs.”

6. A perusal of the aforesaid impugned orders will indicate that the same are in conformity and consonance with well settled principles of law governing addition of parties. At any rate, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are permitted to be impleaded as additional respondents to the appeal and as such, the impugned order cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference in the present petition.

7. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are also guilty of committing several illegalities under the provisions contained in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and liberty may be reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as - 33 - NC: 2024:KHC:9489 WP No. 19752 of 2023 available in law against the respondent Nos.3 to 5 or anyone else in this regard. The said submission is placed on record.

8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law against respondent Nos.3 to 5 or anyone else under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. Sd/- JUDGE SV List No.: 1