IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.9538/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KALYANAMMA, W/O. VENKATAPPA, AGED 74 YEARS.
2. SMT.ALUMELAMMA, D/O.VENKATAPPA, AGED 54 YEARS.
3. SMT.SUSHEELAMMA, D/O VENKATAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS.
4. SMT MEENA, D/O VENKATAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS.
5. JAGADISH S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS.
6. SRI V.RAJAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 6(a). BHAGYAMMA, W/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
6(b). BHAVANI, D/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
6(c). KUSUMA, D/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
6(d). KUM.NAVEENA, D/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
6(a) to 6(d) ARE R/O PARAPPANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560100.
7. SMT YASHODHA, D/O VENKATAPPA, AGED 39 YEARS.
8. ASHWATHANARAYANA, S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED 37 YEARS.
PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 & 6 TO 8 ARE REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER JAGADISH, THE PETITIONER NO.5, AND ALL ARE R/AT:
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560100. ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT S.R.INDUMATHI FOR SRI.BHANU PRASAD, ADVs.) AND:
1. S.ASHOK REDDY, S/O LATE A.SHAMANNA REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT NO 111, KATHALIPALYA, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560095.
2. RAMA MOHAN, S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT # 2288, 21ST CROSS, K.R.ROAD, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE – 70.
3. S.C.RAMESH KUMAR, S/O S.M.CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS R/AT NO.71, 7TH CROSS, WILSON GARDENS, BANGALORE – 560027.
4. KRISHNAPPA, S/O NAGAPPA, AGED 36 YEARS, R/AT NO 496, 4TH CROSS, HOSUR ROAD, SINGASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560068.
5. P.M. MALLA REDDY, S/O CHIKKA MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.136, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, SINGASANDRA POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560068.
6. H.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.151, 7TH CROSS, HOSUR ROAD, SINGASANDRA, BANGALORE-560068.
7. S.BALA REDDY, S/O LATE A.SHAMANNA REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.115/3, 80 FT. MAIN ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095.
8. BABU REDDY, S/O LATE MUNI REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS, R/AT KOODLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 106.
9. NARENDRA BABU S/O M.RAMAKRISHNA & GRAND S/O S.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT MADDERI, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101.
10. R.HARISH BABU S/O M.RAMAKRISHNA & GRAND S/O S.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT MADDERI, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101.
11. K.M.VEERAPPA REDDY, S/O.MUNIREDDY, MAJOR, R/AT NO.35, KAIKONDANAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE-560035.
12. S. BHAGYANATHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.33, ‘G’ MAIN ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.
13. B.T.MANJUNATH, S/O M.THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.32, 38TH MAIN, KAS OFFICERS LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE.
14. B.T.SRINATH, S/O M.THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.32, 38TH MAIN, KAS OFFICERS LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE.
15. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT HADOSIDDAPURA VILLAGE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-35.
16. S.P.BABU, S/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.60/2, 3RD MAIN, MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560068.
17. SMT. SHARADA, W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO.493, 4TH CROSS, C.K.NAGAR, HOSA ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-560100.
18. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O BADAKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
19. SRI. S.E.RAGHAVENDRA S/O BADAKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 18 & 19 ARE R/AT NO.276, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560068. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.3.1.2017 IN O.S.NO.6002/2008 PASSED ON I.A.NO.15 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This is the plaintiffs’ writ petition questioning the correctness of the order passed on 03.01.2017 by dismissing I.A.No.15 filed by the plaintiffs’ under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to incorporate para No.13(a) to 13(d) and additional reliefs (e) and (f) as more fully described in the Interlocutory Application-Annexure-B.
2. Plaintiffs have filed the suit in question for relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners and for mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants to remove and demolish the constructions put up by them over the suit schedule property.
3. Initially, the suit was filed against defendant Nos.1 to 16. Subsequently, defendant Nos.17 to 19 have been impleaded and plaintiffs sought for incorporating additional pleading with regard to sale transaction of impleaded defendants by contending that constructions put up by them in the suit property is illegal construction and as such sought for demolition. The prayer sought under the proposed amendment, reads as under:
e) For Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant No.17 to remove and demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction pu- up by them over the suit schedule property;
f) For Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants No.18 & 19 to remove and demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction put-up by them over the suit schedule property;
4. The said application was opposed by defendant Nos.18 and 19 by their objections (Annexure-D) and trial Court after considering the contentions raised by the respective learned advocates, by order in question dismissed the application on the ground that plaintiffs will have to establish their title to the suit property and any transactions made by the defendants alienating the property during the pendency of the suit would be hit by doctrine of lis- pendence and as such it was held proposed amendment is neither necessary nor required for effectively adjudicating the issue in question.
5. As it could be seen from the pleading, it is the contention of Smt.S.R.Indumathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that trial Court ought not have rejected the application particularly, when the proposed amendment is only an amplification to the existing plea since defendant Nos.17 to 19 has been brought on record during the pendency of the suit and in order to demonstrate as to how their purchase of sites would not be binding on the plaintiffs, the proposed amendment was sought for and as such, she contends that trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and on perusal of the pleadings as pleaded before trial Court, it would disclose that the prayer sought for in the plaint is identical, similar to the prayer sought for under the proposed amendment. In fact, prayer under proposed amendment has already been sought for by the plaintiffs at prayer (b) in the plaint. The pleas which are now sought to be put forward by the proposed amendment are relating to sale transactions, which has taken place during the pendency of the suit. Rejection of the amendment application would not come in the way of the plaintiffs placing said sale deeds under which defendant Nos.17 to 19 have purchased the portions of the suit property by the plaintiffs in aid of prayer (b) sought for in the suit.
Subject to above observations, petition stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE VM/SB