IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.55/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE H.M. HANUMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/A 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN CHINNAPANAHALLI VILLAGE MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU 560 037.
REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. H.G. LAKSHMI W/O SRI. P. DHANARAJ AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.2, 1ST MAIN, 4TH FLOOR SEVEN HILLS, SATISH NILAYA, TALAKAVERI LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU 560 092.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI G. S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1. H. THIPPA REDDY S/O LATE H M HANUMA REDDY 69 YEARS SAIKRUPA CHINNAPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE – 560037.
2. R SATHYANARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE H M HANUMA REDDY 66 YEARS R/O CHINNAPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE – 560037.
3. VENKATESH REDDY S/O LATE H M HANUMA REDDY 59 YEARS R/O CHINNAPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE - 560037 4. SRI ANANTH RAM REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS a) SMT. SUMA REDDY D/O LATE ANANTHARAM REDDY AND SMT NAGAVENI, 24 YEARS b) SMT. A SOWMYA REDDY, D/O LATE ANANTHARAM REDDY AND SMT NAGAVENI 22 YEARS c) SMT. DEENA W/O LATE ANANTHARAM REDDY 42 YEARS d) SRI CA. C SANDEEP REDDY S/O LATE ANANTHARAM REDDY AND SMT. DEENA M 21 YEARS 4(a) TO (d) ARE R/O CHINNAPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE – 560037.
5. SMT. N. K. NAGAVENI D/O LATE SHARADAMMA, 46 YEARS R/O CHINNAPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE - 560037 6. SMT. N K JAYANTHI D/O LATE SHARADAMMA 36 YEARS DODDANEKKUNDI POST, BENGALURU-560037.
7. SRI N K VASUDEV REDDY S/O LATE SHARADAMMA 55 YEARS NO 99, MAHESHWARI NILAYA DODDANEKKUNDI POST, BANGALORE - 560037 8. SRI N K BABU REDDY S/O LATE SHARADAMMA 39 YEARS, NO 99, MAHESHWARI NILAYA DODDANEKKUNDI POST, BANGALORE - 560037 9. SMT. N K KAMALAKSHAMMA D/O LATE SHARADAMMA 57 YEARS 10. SMT N K SUDHA D/O LATE SHARADAMMA 52 YEARS 11. SMT N K GOWRAMMA D/O LATE SHARADAMMA 49 YEARS 9 TO 11 ARE R/O HOODI POST HOODI, BANGALORE – 560037.
12. SMT. N K LAKSHMI D/O LATE SHARADAMMA 44 YEARS DODDANEKKUNDI POST BANGALORE – 560037.
13. SMT. N K MANU D/O LATE SHARADAMMA 42 YEARS DODDANEKKUNDI POST BANGALORE - 560037 14. SRI P BABU S/O LATE VIJAYAMMA 39 YEARS ANANTHARAM REDDY LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI POST, CHINNAPANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560037 15. SMT P GAYATHRI D/O LATE VIJAYAMMA 36 YEARS ANANTHARAM REDDY LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI POST, CHINNAPANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560037 16. SRI P NATARAJ S/O LATE VIJAYAMMA 45 YEARS ANANTHARAM REDDY LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI POST, CHINNAPANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560037 17. SRI P LAKSHMINARAYAN REDDY S/O LATE PEDHAKKA,64 YEARS NO 13, CHINNAPANAHALLI, DODDANEKKUNDI POST, BANGALORE - 560037 18. SMT P NAGAMMA D/O LATE SAVITHRAMMA C/O NAGARAJ, 49 YEARS ANANTHARAM REDDY LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI POST, CHINNAPANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560037 19. SMT. P CHANDRA D/O LATE SAVITHRAMMA C/O NAGARAJ, 47 YEARS ANANTHARAM REDDY LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI POST, CHINNAPANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560037 20. SMT SUMA REDDY D/O LATE ANANTHARAM REDDY AND SMT N K NAGAVENI 28 YEARS CHINNAPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560037 21. SMT A SOWMYA REDDY D/O LATE ANANTHARAM REDDY AND SMT N K NAGAVENI 26 YEARS CHINNAPANAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE – 560037.
22. SMT. M DEENA W/O LATE ANANTHARAM REDDY 46 YEARS CHINNAPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE - 560037 23. SRI A SANDEEP REDDY S/O LATE ANANTHARAM REDDY AND SMT. M DEENA 25 YEARS CHINNAPANAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE - 560037 24. SRI L V RAJU S/O LATE R L RAJU, 68 YEARS R/A NO 76 RANGA RAO ROAD SHANKARAPURAM BANGALORE - 560004 25. SMT. N A HEMAVATHY D/O N H ANANTHA REDDY MAJOR 26. SMT. N A NALINA D/O N H ANANTHA REDDY MAJOR 27. SMT. N A KAVITHA D/O N H ANANTHA REDDY MAJOR 25 TO 27 ARE R/A NO 668, 14TH CROSS, 13TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE – 560076.
28. SRI S NAGENDRA BABU S/O H SATHYANARAYANA REDDY MAJOR R/A HANUMAREDDY LAYOUT CHINNAPPANAHALLI DODDANEKUNDI POST, BANGALORE – 560037.
29. SRI T. VIJAYA KUMAR @ VIJAYA BABU S/O H. THIPPA REDDY MAJOR, R/A SAI KRUPA HANUMA REDDY LAYOUT CHINNAPPANAHALLI DODDANEKKUNDI POST, BANGALORE - 560037 30. SRI G V CHANDRASHEKAR S/O G R VENKATASWAMY REDDY, MAJOR, R/O GUNJUR GRAMA VARTHUR POST, BANGALORE - 560087 31. M/S ROHAN ASSOCIATES PRADEEP CHAMBERS 813, BHANDARKAR INSTITUTE ROAD, PUNE – 411004.
REP BY ITS PARTNER MR SANJAY KUSHALCHAND LUNKAD ALSO AT M/S ROHAN ASSOCIATES, NO 1201, 1ST FLOOR, DIVYA SHAKTI, 100’ ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560038 32. SRI SANJAY KUSHALCHJAND LUNKAD PARTNER M/S ROHAN ASSOCIATES NO 1201, 1ST FLOOR, DIVYA SHAKTI, 100’ ROAD, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE - 560038 33. M/S GOODRICH AEROSPACE SERVICES PVT LTD SY NO 14/1 AND 15/1 MARUTHI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PHASE- II HOODI VILLAGE WHITEFIELD, K. R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560048.
REP. BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT MR. CHRISTOPHER ANIL RAO 34. G V LAKSHMIKANTH RAJU SINCE DEAD BY LRs 34(a) SMT. B. SHASHIREKAMMA W/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 34(b) SRI .V.L. MUKUNDARAJU S/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 34(c) SMT. V.L. RAJESHWARI D/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHARAJU, MAJOR, 34(d) SMT. V.L. JAYASHREE D/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHARAJU, MAJOR, A TO d ARE RESIDING AT No.9/1, 28TH CROSS, KILLARI ROAD, BANGALORE-560003.
35. SMT. VANAMALA, D/O H HANUMA REDDY W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY 52 YEARS, CHINNAPANAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI BANGALORE - 560037 36. SMT SARASAMMA D/O H. HANUMA REDDY W/O LATE RAMACHADRA REDDY 62 YEARS RESIDING AT KOLAR - 563101 NEAR RTO OFFICE 37. SRI A. ANNADANAPPA S/O LATE R A SAGANABASAPPA, MAJOR, R/A NEW THIPPASANDRA BANGALORE – 560075.
38. SRI K ASHWATH S/O SRI S KRISHNAPPA MAJOR, C/O MUNITHAYAPPA BUILDING HOODI VILLAGE BANGALORE - 560048 39. SRI H B SUDHIR S/O H S BASAVARAJAPPA 42 YEARS R/A NO 33, BASAVA KRUPA NANDIDURG ROAD, JAYAMAHAL, BANGALORE - 560046 40. SRI N. SRINVASA REDDY S/O LATE T. NARAYANA REDDY 63 YEARS, R/A NO 89, 4TH CROSS, GOKULA 3RD STAGE MYSORE – 570002.
41. SRI N THIMMA REDDY S/O LATE T NARAYANA REDDY 60 YEARS R/A NO 57, 4TH MAIN, DOMLUR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560071 42. SRI N GOPAL REDDY S/O LATE T NARAYAN REDDY 53 YEARS, R /A NO 2, MUTHASANDRA VIA VARTHUR BANGALORE - 560087 43. SRI P VENKATESHWARA RAO S/O SRI P SURANNA 49 YEARS R/A NO 384/A, SINDURA APARTMENTS, RMV II STAGE, II BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560094.
44. SRI G K SURESH S/O G T KRISHNAPPA REDDY 41 YEARS R/O GUNJUR VILLAGE VARTHUR BANGALORE - 560087 45. M/S VIJETHA CONSTRUCTIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM NO 13/2, OPP : PRESTIGE OZONE, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE – 560066. REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI B SREEDHAR.
46. SMT KAMALAMMA W/O SRI H. THIPPA REDDY R/A NO 22, SAI KRUPA CHINNAPANAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE - 560037 47. SRI T MURALIDHAR S/O SRI H. THIPPA REDDY R/A NO 23, R J GARDEN I CROSS, ANANTH NAGAR, CHINNAPANAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE – 560037.
48. SRI T. KIRAN KUMAR S/O SRI H. THIPPA REDDY R/A NO 1/6, RAJ PALYA, HOODI VILLAGE, K R PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560048 49. MAHAVEER PROPERTIES MHAVEER BOWER - II REP BY ITS PROP:
SRI P SATHYA SHEKAR NO 1, MAHAVEER TOWERS 3RD FLOOR, 24TH MAIN, J P NAGAR 5TH PHASE, BANGALORE – 560078.
50. SRI RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTHA FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF MAJOR R/A FLAT NO 301, 2ND FLOOR 51. SMT. NIDHI GUPTHA W/O SRI RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTHA MAJOR R/A FLAT NO 301, 2ND FLOOR 52. DR. HIREMATH VAMADEVAIAH S/O SRI H. M. PANCHAKSHARAIAH MAJOR R/A FLAT NO. 404, 4TH FLOOR, 53. SRI T. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O SRI T. PRASAD 34 YEARS 54. SMT. T. N. L. SHILPA, W/O SRI T SUNIL KUMAR MAJOR R/A NO 203, 2ND FLOOR 55. SRI K. MOHAN DAS S/O SRI D. KRISHNA VADIYAR ,60 YEARS R/A NO 402, 4TH FLOOR, 56. SRI AMITHAVA PAUL S/O SRI BABU PAUL, 32 YEARS R/A NO 402, 4TH FLOOR, 57. SRI R. PADMANABHAN S/O SRI S. RAJAGOPAL, 38 YEARS R/A FLAT NO 102, 1ST FLOOR, 58. SRI A. K. RAMANJALU S/O LATE SRI GUNASHEKARAN A R AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.104, I FLOOR, 59. SRI SRIKANTH HALLA VENKATA NAGESWAR RAO A AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.302, 3RD FLOOR, 60. SRI VEGI SRINIVAS FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIF AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.404 4TH FLOOR, 61. SRI ANIL KUMAR ATNURKAR S/O SRI DINAKAR RAO ATNURKAR 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.304, 3RD FLOOR, 62. SRI S. LINGESH KUMAR S/O SRI M. SHIVA PERUMAL, MAJOR R/AT NO.201, 2ND FLOOR, 63. SRI JAYAKISHORE PAGADALA S/O SRI P VEERARAGHAVA RAO MAJOR R/AT NO.202 2ND FLOOR, 49 TO 63 IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FLATS AT MAHAVEER BOWER-II CMC KHATA NO.100, K T CHINNAPPANAHALLI, K R PURAM HOLBI BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560036.
64. DR. T N ACHAIAH S/O LATE SRI T M NANJAPPA 56 YEARS, R/A MAHIL SAMAJA ROAD, VIRAJPET-571 218 (KODAGU DT) 65. SMT CHENANDA NIRMALA MUDAPPA W/O LATE SRI C A MUDAPPA, 70 YEARS, R/A NO.228, 5TH CROSS ROAD, I MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 071.
66. SRI P M ACHAIAH S/O SRI P R MUTHAPPA 36 YEARS, 67. SRI P G MUTHAPPA S/O SRI P A. GANAPATHI, 71 YEARS, 66 & 67 R/A 3367/5, 8TH CROSS 13TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 008.
68. M/S ROMA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.858, 2ND MAIN ROAD, C BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT KUNDALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037.
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SMT. T R L PADMAVATHI 69. SRI MEDIDAM NAGAVENKATA CHANDRA MOHAN MAJOR, S/O VEERABHADRACHARAYALU R/AT FLAT NO.104, GROUND FLOOR, 70. SRI MAJETY SURAYANARAYANA MUTHY S/O SRI UPENDRA RAO, 38 YEARS, 71. SMT. GOKAVARAPU LAKSHMI NAGA VENKATA SARITHA, 32 YEARS, W/O SRI MAJETY SURYANARAYANA MURTHY 70 & 71 ARE R/A FLAT NO.204, I FLOOR, 72. SRI PALICHARLA SAREEN KUMAR REDDY S/O SRI P. VENUGOPALA REDDY MAJOR, FLAT NO.303, 3RD FLOOR 73. SRI. BACHUPALI AMARENDRA, S/O. SRI. B. CHALAPATHI RAO, MAJOR R/AT. NO.303, GROUND FLOOR, 74. SRI. RASOJU VEERABHADRACHARI S/O. SRI. ESHWARAIAH, MAJOR R/AT. NO.105, GROUND FLOOR 75. SMT. RADHA H. GOWDA W/O. LATE. SRI. HOMBE GOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT. NO.304,3RD FLOOR, 76. SRI. LINGA HARIKRISHNA PRASAD S/O. LATE. SRI. VENKATESWARA RAO, MAJOR, R/AT. FLAT.NO.203, 1ST FLOOR 69 TO 76 ARE ALL IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FLATS AT ROMA PEARL APARTMENTS SY NO.10/1, CHINNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, K R PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560036.
77. SRI. B.V. RADHAKRISHNA, S/O.LATE. SRI. MAHADEV BHAT, MAJOR, R/A: NO.562, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDALAHALLI, K.R.PURAM HOBLI,L BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560036.
78. SRI. S.R. VENKATESH S/O.LATE. RAMESH, 46 YEARS R/A: NO.7, SOWMAY LAYOUT, KONENA AGRAHARA HAL POST, BANGALORE - 560017.
79. M/S. KEERTHANA CONSTRUCTIONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1, ASSAYE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560042. REP. BY ITS PARTNERS 1. SMT. P. SARASWATHI, 2. SRI. B. CHIRANJEEVI, 3. SRI. P. MADHUSUDANA REDDY.
80. MAHAVEER PROPERTIES MAHAVEER BOWER-II, REP. BY ITS PROP: SRI. SATHYA SHEKAR, NO.1, MAHAVEER TOWERS, 3RD FLOOR, 24TH MAIN, JP NAGARA, 5TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560078.
81. SRI JAYARAMA REDDY, S/O FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF, MAJOR, R/A : M.B.W. BRICK WIRES, CHANNAPPANA HALLI, MARATHHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560037. SINCE DEAD BY LRS., 81(a) G.J. RAJA, MAJOR, S/O G. JAYARAMA REDDY, 81(b) G.J. VIJAYA KUMAR, MAJOR, S/O G. JAYARAMA REDDY, 81(c) G.J.ARUNA, MAJOR D/O G. JAYARAMA REDDY, 81(a) TO (c) ARE R/O M.B.W. BRICK WIRES, CHANNAPPANA HALLI, MARATHHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560037.
82. M/S GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GOLDEN HOUSE, 820, 80 FEET ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.
DIRECTOR MR. C.D. SANJAY RAJ.
83. MRS. ANU CHOPRA (MAIDEN NAME MISS ARUNA B. RAO) W/O MR. RAJEEV CHOPRA, AGED 55 YEARS, NO.16/126, MAYUR APARTMENTS, PRABHAT COLONY, OP. HOTEL GALAXY, SANTA CRUZ EAST, MUMBAI-400055.
84. MR. GIRISH NAYUDU S/O LATE SRI A.V.R. NAYUDU, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT SITE NO. 10, AECS 1LAYOUT, A BLOCK, CHINNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK 560036. BANGALORE.560036.
85. MRS. SHONALEE DAMODAR W/O SRI B.B. SUJITH CARIAPPA, R/A 351, 7TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 008.
86. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDER DR. B.S. RAO., S/O FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, MAJOR 87. DR. B. JANSI LAKSHMI BAI W/O B.S. RAO, SY. NO. 23, R.J. GARDENS, CHINNAPPANAHALLI, MARATHHALLI POST, BANGALORE-37.
88. M/S SHRIRAM BUILDERS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 10/1B, GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD, HOODI, BANGALORE-560 048.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI C. SURENDRANATH REDDY S/O LATE SRI. NARASIMHA REDDY.
89. T.N. BHAGYA W/O T.C. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT 274, 128, 13TH MAIN ROAD, HAL 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 008.
90. M/S ICON DEVELOPERS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, (REGISTERED AS NO. SJN-F 744/2011-12), HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 106, 1ST FLOOR, ABOVE REKHA MARBLES, VIJAYA BANK COLONY EXTENSION, BANASAWADI RING ROAD, BANGALORE-43, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, MRS. C.SURENDRANATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI C. NARASIMHA REDDY, MR. G. PRABHAKAR REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS S/O MR. GURIVI REDDY, SRI N. SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE T. NARAYANA REDDY, 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 89, 4TH CROSS, GOKULA 3RD STAGE, MYSORE-570002.
91. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RESTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
92. THE SPECIAL LAND ACUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
93. M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, K.H. ROAD,SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.
94. SRI HANUKRISHNA K S/O HANUMANTHAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 95. SMT. APARNA P V W/O HANUKRISHNA K, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 94 AND 95 ARE RESIDING AT NO.11/2, 4TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, TRIVENI ROAD K.N.EXTENSION, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022.
96. SRI RAVI KUMAR LAGISETTY S/O L.MALLIAH GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.B-303, VERACIOUS SONESTA, K.R.GARDEN, WIND TUNNEL ROAD, MURUGESHPALYA, BENGALURU-560017.
97. SRI K. SRINVIASAN S/O KASHI VISHWANATHAN, AGED AOBUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.172, RANI CHANNAMMA SOCIETY, MM EXTENSION, SRININAGAR, BELAGAUM-590016.
98. SRI S V SUBRAMANI S/O S.C.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIRNIVASANDRA AVILLAGE, AND POST, KASAMBAL HOBLI, BANGARPET TLAUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, REP. BY THERI GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M/S. SAADHANA DEVELOPERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERHSIP ACT AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.26/2, FIRST FLOOR, V.R.CHAMBERS OUTER RING ROAD, KADUBASANHALLI, BELLANDURU POST, BENGALURU-560103.
REPRESNETED ITS PATNTERS, SRI.MASTHANAIAH KONCHA, SMT.KOTHAPALI SUMALATHA.
99. SRI GANAPATHI RAO AYINAPURAPU S/O PRABHAKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.42, 3RD CROSS, CHINNAPPANAHALLI MAIN, DODDANAKKUNDI EXTENSION, BENGALURU 560037.
100.SRI KUPPUSWAMY S/O FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, AGED AOBUT 65 YEARS, 101.SRI K ASHOK REDDY S/O KUPPUSWAMY & BHARATHI, AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, 102.SRI K. VASU REDDY, S/O KUPPUSWAMY & BHARATHI, AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS, 100 TO 102 ARE RESIDIG AT NO.64, ANANTHARAMA REDDY LAYOUT, CHINNAPPANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560037.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-19 SRI G. S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-24;
SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-29, R46 & R47) … THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 PASSED BY THE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU PASSED ON I.A.30/2018 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The plaintiff filed the present writ petition against the order dated 20.12.2018 on I.A. No.30/2018 in O.S. No.1754/2006 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the suit.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties contending that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. It is stated in the plaint that on 29.11.1971 a partition was effected amongst Hanuma Reddy and his children and at that partition, Hanuma Reddy was allotted certain properties as shown in schedule-A of the plaint. It is further stated in the plaint though Sy.No.19 was purchased by Hanuma Reddy, it has been partitioned and all acquisitions by Hanuma Reddy or other members of the family are out of joint family members. The joint family of Hanuma Reddy has already been in afferent circumstances. As the family was joint in full, all the properties were enjoyed jointly. Though some of the properties were purchased in the name of the coparceners, all the properties were being enjoyed commonly etc. On these and other contentions, the plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession of the suit properties and for Permanent Injunction.
3. The contesting defendants filed the written statement contending that in view of the earlier partition, the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. The defendant No.24 who purchased item No.4 of the suit schedule property in the year 1970 i.e., prior to filing of the suit, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which came to be allowed. The defendant No.24 also filed the written statement. The trial Court during the pendency of the proceedings on 25.11.2010 granted the order of Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. Against the order passed by the trial Court, Miscellaneous First Appeal came to be filed before this Court by some of the defendants, which came to be dismissed.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that on 24.7.2017 the present petitioner – plaintiff filed memo to withdraw the suit against the defendant No.24 in respect of item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule properties. The trial Court allowed the memo on 10.8.2017 and permitted to withdraw the suit against the defendant No.24 in respect of item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule property. Thereafter on 4.11.2017 the plaintiff filed an application to recall the order dated 10.8.2017. In the mean time, the defendant No.24 sold item No.4 of the suit schedule property on 24.1.2018 in favour of M/s Sumadhura Infra Con Pvt. Ltd., and thereafter the matter was posted on 24.4.2018. On 24.4.2018, the Court posted the application filed by the plaintiff for recalling, along with the main suit. That was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.22941/2018. During the pendency of the writ petition, the said application for recalling was allowed on 7.12.2018 and the writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter the plaintiff filed I.A. No.30 for impleadment of pendente lite purchaser on 15.12.2018. The defendant No.24 alone filed objections. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 rejected the said application. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri G.S. Venkat Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff to implead the purchaser of item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule properties during pendente lite of the suit, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the defendant No.24 was purchaser of item No.4 of ‘C’ schedule properties prior to filing of the suit and inspite of order of injunction granted by the trial court on 25.11.2010 against all the defendants not to alienate the property, in violation of the order of injunction, the defendant No.24 has sold item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule property to the proposed impleading applicant on 24.1.2018 and therefore the proposed impleading applicant is a necessary and proper party to resolve the dispute between the parties. He further contended that if the proposed impleading applicant is not impleaded to the proceedings, he may alienate the property to the 3rd party and it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In order to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, the impleading applicant is a necessary and proper party. Therefore he sought to quash the order passed by the trial Court by allowing the present writ petition.
8. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:
1. Shaukat Ali vs. Bhag Chand and others {LAWS (RAJ) 2016 3 97}, wherein the Rajasthan High Court observed that before a new party is impleaded under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notice must be issued to the proposed party .
2. Amit Kumar Shaw and another vs. Farida Khatoon and another {AIR 2005 SC 2209 .. paragraphs 14 and 16}, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.
9. Per contra, Sri G.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.24 and Sri C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.29,46 and 47 and Sri G. Nagaraja, learned advocate for Respondent No.29 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the dispute is between the plaintiff and the members of the joint family. If any person purchased the property during the pendency of the proceedings, the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would attract and any alienation made is always subject to result of the suit. The applicant who purchased during the pendency of the proceedings has not filed application before the Court. Only the plaintiff has filed application for impleading. He also contended that earlier, the very plaintiff filed application for withdrawal of the suit against defendant No.24 in respect of item No.4 of the ‘C’ schedule property, which came to be allowed on 10.8.2017. Thereafter as an after thought, the application filed to recall the order dated 10.8.2017. The said application came to be allowed. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. He further contended that when the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW.1, at that stage, the application came to be filed. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore sought to dismiss the writ petition.
10. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is:
“Whether the trial Court is justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the pendente lite purchaser as additional defendant, in the facts and circumstances of the case ? ”
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.
12. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession contending that he is entitled to share though he has pleaded in the plaint that there was earlier partition in the year 1971. The contesting defendants filed the written statement and contended that the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is also not in dispute that the trial Court granted the order of injunction on 25.11.2010 restraining all the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. The said order of injunction is still operating till today. When the order of injunction was operating, the plaintiff filed memo on 24.7.2017 to withdraw the suit against the defendant No.24 in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule property, which came to be allowed on 10.8.2017. We do not know what prompted the plaintiff to file an application on 4.11.2017 to recall the order dated 10.8.2017 of withdrawal of the suit against the defendant No.4 in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule property. In the interregnum, during the existence of the order of injunction, the defendant No.24 sold item No.4 of the suit schedule property to the proposed defendant i.e., M/s Sumadhura Infra Con Pvt. Ltd., on 24.1.2018 under the registered sale deed for valuable consideration of Rs.45 crores. Admittedly, the plaintiff already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e., separately numbered and the same is pending for enquiry.
13. Thereafter when the matter was posted for cross- examination of DW.1, at that stage the plaintiff filed I.A. No.30 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the proposed defendant i.e, M/s Sumadhura Infra Con. Private Limited as additional defendant since he is a proper and necessary party, raising various contentions. It is contended that the defendant No.24 has acquired the right in respect of item No.4 of the ‘C’ schedule property and it is in fact defendant NO.24 who voluntarily got impleaded in the suit and as such the impleading applicant is necessary and proper party to resolve the dispute. Only the defendant No.24 filed objections to the said application.
14. The trial Court considering the application and the objections has proceeded to reject the application and recorded a finding that the plaintiff has pleaded a fact that has occurred during the pendency of the suit and when a transaction is covered under lis-pendens, question of bringing subsequent transferee does not arise. From the pleadings of the parties, it is noted that defendant NO.24 has been arrayed in the suit as purchaser of portion of item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule property. It is settled principles of law that, whoever purchases the schedule property during the pendency of the suit, does so at his risk and the transaction would be subject to the decision of the Court. When the defendant No.24 is already on record as purchaser, whatever be his right, if any in the schedule property would be decided during final disposal of the suit. Therefore the proposed defendant is not a necessary and proper party for determination of the dispute pending between the parties. Accordingly, the application came to be rejected.
15. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to consider the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that the Court at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court, effectually and completely, to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. It is clear that the suit is pending for adjudication between the parties in respect of partition among the members of the joint family. The defendant No.24 is not a member of the joint family, who purchased item No.4 of the ‘C’ suit schedule property in the year 1970 and his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed by the Court. The proposed defendant purchased the said property on 24.1.2018 during the pendency of the suit, that too when the injunction was operating against all the defendants, knowing fully well that the defendant No.4 has sold item No.4 of the ‘C’ Suit Schedule property taking the risk of disobeying the order of Temporary injunction and the said alienation is always hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The proposed impleading applicant is not a necessary party to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate the claim and settle all the questions involved in the suit for partition between the members of the joint family.
16. It is also not in dispute that the impleading applicant who purchased item No.4 on 24.1.2018 from the defendant No.4 has not come before the Court alleging that during the pendency of the suit, there is likelihood of the plaintiff and the defendant No.24 colluding together to deprive his rights and therefore he should be impleaded to protect his property purchased under the registered sale deed. The Plaintiff is not bound to make him a party and the alienee has no absolute right to be joined as a party in the suit for partition. Therefore on that ground also, the application filed by the plaintiff has to be rejected.
17. It is well settled that in a suit for partition, at the stage of passing of a preliminary decree for partition, the only question that needs to be adjudicated by the trial Court is whether the property in question is a co-parcenery property or a joint family property and if so, what is the share to which the family members are entitled to. For the declaration of such shares at the preliminary stage, the presence of alienee (pendente lite purchaser) is not necessary. My view is fortified by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of S.K. Lakshminarasappa, since deceased by his L.Rs., vs. Sri B. Rudraiah and others reported in ILR 2012 Kar 4129, wherein at paragraphs 61 and 62 it is held as under:
61. In a suit for partition, at the stage of passing of a preliminary decree for partition, the only question that needs to be adjudicated by the Trial Court is, whether the property in question is a co-parcenery property or a joint family property and if so, what is the share to which these family members are entitled to. For the declaration of such shares, the presence of alienees is not necessary. Even in their absence the suit of the plaintiff can be adjudicated upon and their presence is in no way necessary for the Court to determine the questions involved in the suit. It is only after declaration of shares, at the stage of dividing the property by metes and bounds and putting them in possession of the extent of the share so declared, the character, validity and the nature of alienations have to be taken note of. It is at that stage, it is necessary to hear the persons who are claiming title through such members of the family and who have parted with valuable consideration and who are in possession of the property. This is because if they have to be dispossessed from the property, if their sale deeds are to be annulled, they have to be heard. Therefore, a suit for partition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of these third parties/strangers to the family. A suit for partition can be dismissed only if the members of the family who have an interest in the property are not made parties as they are the only necessary parties to the suit. At worst if a person other than a necessary party is not made a party to the suit, the decree passed in their absence may not bind them, if they are claiming any independent title to the property being in possession of the same. If members of a joint family file a suit for partition without impleading alienees and collude and get a decree passed affecting the interest of alienees, the said collusive decree being void, as alienees being not made parties and such a decree does not in any way affect their interests. But, a suit for partition cannot be dismissed on that ground.
62. In a suit for partition not only those who are entitled to a share in the joint family property but also those persons who are entitled to maintenance and also those persons for whose marriages provision has to be made from out of the funds of joint family property are necessary parties. A transferee of an item of property from the vendee who purchased it from a party to the suit is not directly a transferee and therefore there is no nexus between the transferee and the party to the suit from whom the property was purchased. Therefore, such transferee is not a necessary party to the suit. In a suit for partition of properties of a Joint Hindu Family, there is no legal bar even after a preliminary decree had been passed, in an appropriate circumstances to add a party under Order 1 Rule 10, in the final decree proceedings if the Court thinks that the addition of such party is necessary to adjudicate upon all questions effectively and completely. The proceedings in a partition suit do not become final unless the final decree is passed. It is only the final decree that brings about termination of suit. The Court can add a party in a partition suit even after a preliminary decree but before a final decree takes place. A suit for partition is finally disposed off only with the passing of a final decree. Impleading of additional parties subsequent to passing of a preliminary decree in a suit for partition is permissible, only if none of the questions already settled by the preliminary decree would not have to be re-opened by reason of such a joinder. Therefore, it is clear in order to decide the share to which each member of a family or a person claiming under such member of a joint family, the necessary parties are only the members of the joint family. Once all those members are made parties, the suit for partition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The purchasers from those members of the family or subsequent purchasers from the earlier purchasers are proper parties in a suit for partition. They could be, added even during final decree proceedings. For not adding them as parties, a suit for partition cannot be dismissed.
18. In so far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without notice to the proposed impleading applicant, the trial Court ought not to have rejected the application filed by the plaintiff, the same cannot be accepted as the very judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Shaukat Ali cited supra is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was a case wherein before a new party is impleaded under provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notice must be issued to the proposed party and it is not appropriate or correct procedure that notice be issued after the Court comes to the conclusion that the proposed party is a necessary party and it is always available to such party to plead that it in fact is not a necessary party. Admittedly, in the present case, the pendente lite purchaser under the registered sale deed is not before the Court by filing an application and it is the application filed by the plaintiff. Therefore the said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
19. In the another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw cited surpa, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit. Such an alienee can be brought on record both under this rule as also under Order 1 Rule 10. Since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree passed in the suit during the pendency of which a transfer is made binds on the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be allowed. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant; the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party.
20. As already noticed, the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests and he is entitled to be heard in the matter on merits of the case. Admittedly as already stated above in the present case, an alienee pendente lite is not before this Court alleging that there is likelihood of the plaintiff and the defendant No.24 colluding together to deprive his rights and therefore he should be impleaded to protect his rights. By reading of Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that ultimately it is the Court which has to exercise the discretion judicially based on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw cited supra. The said dictum declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the facts of the said case. The said dictum has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
21. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ petition is answered in the affirmative holding that the trial Court is justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the pendente lite purchaser as additional defendant, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner - plaintiff has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court exercising the powers under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, it is made clear that it is the risk of the pendente lite purchaser who purchased the property in question on 24.1.2018 and it is always hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and binding on the parties to the lis including the alienee - purchaser if he has purchased during the pendency of the suit. The purchaser/s who purchased the property in question during the existence of the order of injunction and pendency of the suit, cannot thereafter claim any equity.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-