IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 1434/2017 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL Nos.1435/2017, 1436/2017, 1775/2017 & 512/2018 In RFA No.1434/2017 BETWEEN 1. Karnataka Khadi Gramodyog Workers Jakkur Layout Site Owners Welfare Association, Represented by its President Sri. Lakshminarayana Rao R, S/o. Late Ramaiah, 71 years, R/o. No.22, 2nd ‘D’ Cross, 3rd Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560072.
2. Sri. V.N.Krishna Murthy, S/o. Nagappa Gowda, Aged about 66 years, R/a No.18, 1st Cross, Nethravathi Layout, Kanshiram Nagar, Hessaraghatta Main Road, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru-560097.
(By Sri. M.R.Rajagopal, Advocate) …Appellants AND 1. Sri. Ravikumar, S/o. Late Jayarame Gowda, Aged about 38 years, 2. Smt. Nagamani, D/o. Late Jayarame Gowda, Aged about 45 years, 3. Smt. Radha, D/o. Late Jayarame Gowda, Aged about 41 years, 4. Smt. Rukmini, D/o. Late Jayarame Gowda, Aged about 41 years, All are R/a No.97, Jakkur Post, Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District-560064.
5. Smt. Sharadamma, W/o. Late Jayarame Gowda, Aged about 69 years, R/o. Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District-560064.
Sri. Devaraju (Deleted vide trial court’s Order dated 07.06.2014) The Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Workers’ HBCS Ltd., having its office At No.10, Jasma Bhavan, Bengaluru-560064 Represented by its President Sri. N.Lingaraj (Deleted as per trial court’s Order dated 19.07.2016) 6. The Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Workers’ HBCS Ltd., having its office At No.10, Jasma Bhavan, Bengaluru-560064 Represented by its Special officer Sri. N.Lakshman (By Sri. Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, Advocate and …Respondents Sri. S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocate for R1 to R4 Sri. Suresh S. Lokre, Advocate for R5 Sri. Pradeep Singh, Advocate for R6) This RFA is filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2016 passed in O.S.No.1529/2014 on the file of the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru., Decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction.
In RFA No.1435/2017 BETWEEN 1. Karnataka Khadi Gramodyog Workers Jakkur Layout Site Owners Welfare Association, Represented by its President Sri. Lakshminarayana Rao R, S/o. Late Ramaiah, 71 years, R/o. No.22, 2nd ‘D’ Cross, 3rd Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560072.
2. Smt. Shanthamma, W/o. Devendrappa Kattimani, Aged about 58 years, R/a No.470, 14th Cross, Jakur Layout, Yelahanka Post, Bengaluru-560064.
3. Smt. K.Geetha Bai, W/o. B.Nithyananda Shenoy, Aged about 61 years, R/a No.302, 2nd Floor, “SIRI SNEHA RESIDENCY”, 1st Cross, Ashwathakatte Road, Chickalasandra, Benagluru-560061.
4. Sri. Srikanth S, S/o. R.Sriram Achar, Aged about 47 years, R/a No.44, “Anagha”, CQAL Layout, Sahakara Nagar, Bengaluru-560092.
5. Smt. Premakumari T.H., W/o. Viswanath, Aged about 58 years, R/a No.147, 6th Cross, ‘B’ Block, Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru-560098.
6. Sri. Radhakrishna Holla, S/o. Late Subbaraya Holla, Aged about 69 years, R/a No.113, 2nd ‘C’ Cross, East of NGEF, Kasturinagara, Bengaluru-560043.
7. Smt. Sharada Gopal, W/o. Gopal, aged about 65 years, R/a No.409, 1/B, 1st Floor, Sannidhi Apartment, MPM Layout, 60 Feet Road, Mallathhalli, Bengaluru-560056.
8. Sri. Papaiah K.B., S/o. Bodoppa, Aged about 65 years, R/a No.49, 19th Cross, Gayathri Extension, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru-560036.
9. Sir. Santosh Janardhan, S/o. Late Janardhan, Aged about 68 years, R/a No.26, 4th Main, Dr. Ambedkar Layout, Kaval Byrasandra, R.T.Nagara, Bengaluru-560032.
(By Sri. M.R.Rajagopal, Advocate) AND 1. Sri. Thejas, S/o. B.Ravi Gowda, Aged about 27 years, 2. Smt. Akshatha, D/o. B.Ravi Gowda, Aged about 22 years, 3. Sri. B.Ravi Gowda, S/o. Late Byre Gowda, Aged about 58 years, 4. Smt. Yeshodamma, W/o. Late Byre Gowda, Aged about 87 years, R1 to R4 are R/a No.326, 15th Cross, Opp. Sadashivanagar Club, Bengaluru …Appellants 5. The Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Workers’ HBCS Ltd., having its office At No.10, Jasma Bhavan, Bengaluru-560064 Represented by its President Sri. N.Lingaraj (deleted as per trial court’s Order dated 19.07.2016) 6. The Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Workers’ HBCS Ltd., having its office At No.10, Jasma Bhavan, Bengaluru-560064 Represented by its Special officer Sri. N.Lakshman (By Sri. Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, Advocate and …Respondents Sri. S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocate for R1 & R2, Sri. Suresh S. Lokre, Advocate for R3 & R4, R5 – Notice dispensed, Sri. H.S.V.Murthy, Advocate for R6) This RFA is filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2016 passed in O.S.No.1532/2014 on the file of the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru., Decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction.
In RFA No.1436/2017 BETWEEN 1. Karnataka Khadi Gramodyog Workers Jakkur Layout Site Owners Welfare Association, Represented by its President Sri. Lakshminarayana Rao R, S/o. Late Ramaiah, 71 years, R/o. No.22, 2nd ‘D’ Cross, 3rd Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560072.
2. Smt. H.S.Geethamma, W/o. R.K.Balakrishna, Aged about 59 years, R/a No.372, 4th ‘A’ Main, III Phase, Dommalur, Bengaluru-560071.
(By Sri. M.R.Rajagopal, Advocate) AND 1. Sri. Indu Shekar, S/o. A.Muniyappa, Aged about 35 years, 2. Smt. Jaysri, D/o. A.Muniyappa, Aged about 42 years, 3. Sri Indradeep, S/o. A.Muniyappa, Aged about 35 years, 4. Smt. Rajamma, D/o. Muninanjappa @ Abbayya, Aged about 55 years, 5. Smt. S.Divya, D/o. A.Subbaraya, Aged about 28 years, …Appellants 6. Smt. S.Arpitha, D/o. A.Subbaraya, Aged about 26 years, 7. Sri. S.Akash, S/o. A.Subbaraya, Aged about 24 years, 8. Smt. Byramma, D/o. Muninanjappa @ Abbayya, Aged about 53 years, 9. Smt. Chikkamuniyamma, W/o. Byrappa and D/o. Muninanjappa @ Abbayya, Aged about 88 years, All are R/a No.298, Jakkur Post, Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Bengaluru District-560064.
10. Sri. A.Muniyappa, S/o. Muninanjappa @ Abbayya, Aged about 66 years, 11. Sri. A.Subbaraya, S/o. Muninanjappa @ Abbayya, Aged about 58 years, 12. The Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Workers’ HBCS Ltd., having its office At No.10, Jasma Bhavan, Bengaluru-560064 Represented by its President Sri. N.Lingaraj (deleted as per trial court’s Order dated 19.07.2016) 13. The Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Workers’ HBCS Ltd., having its office At No.10, Jasma Bhavan, Bengaluru-560064.
Represented by its Special officer Sri. N.Lakshman (By Sri. Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, Advocate and …Respondents Sri. S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocate for R1 to R11, Sri. Suresh S. Lokre, Advocate for R10 & R11, Sri. H.S.V.Murthy, Advocate for R13) This RFA is filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2016 passed in O.S.No.1534/2014 on the file of the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction.
In RFA No.1775/2017 BETWEEN 1. Karnataka Khadi Gramodyog Workers Jakkur Layout Site Owners Welfare Association, Represented by its President Sri. Lakshminarayana Rao R, S/o. Late Ramaiah, 71 years, R/o. No.22, 2nd ‘D’ Cross, 3rd Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560072.
2. Smt. Dhanalakshmy, W/o. V.Srinivas, Aged about 57 years, R/at No.742, 4th ‘B’ Cross, 9th Main, K.N.Extension, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru-560022.
3. Smt. Prafulla Shekar, W/o. M.Chandrashekar, Aged about 51 years, R/a Tirumala Building, Behind Balaji Complex, Amruthahalli Main Road, Bengaluru-560062.
(By Sri. M.R.Rajagopal, Advocate) AND 1. Smt. Nagarathnamma, D/o. Late Angadi Muninanjappa, Aged about 74 years, R/at No.97, Jakkur Post, Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District - 560106.
2. Sri. M.Subramanya, S/o. Late Angadi Muninanjappa, Aged about 47 years, R/at Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District – 560106.
3. The Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Workers’ HBCS Ltd., having its office At No.10, Jasma Bhavan, Bengaluru-560064 Represented by its President …Appellants 4. The Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Workers’ HBCS Ltd., having its office At No.10, Jasma Bhavan, Bengaluru-560064 Represented by its Special officer Sri. N.Lakshman …Respondents (By Sri. Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, Advocate for R1, Sri. Suresh S Lokre, Advocate for R2, Sri. H.S.V.Murthy, Advocate for R3 & R4) This RFA is filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 2 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.7758/2016 on the file of the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru., Decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction.
In RFA No.512/2018 BETWEEN 1. Dr. Jayaramaiah M., S/o. Manishamagowda, Aged about 70 years, R/o. No.1142, 13th A Main, Judicial Layout, Allalasandra, Bengaluru-560065.
2. Smt. Shilpa J., W/o. Lokesh H.R., Aged about 37 years, R/at No.20, “Sri Rama Nilaya” Nrupatunga Road, T. Dasarahalli, Bengaluru-560057.
(By Sri. S.N.Aswathanarayan, Advocate) AND 1. Smt. Nagarathnamma, D/o. Late Angadi Muninanjappa, Aged about 75 years, R/at No.97, Jakkur Post, Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District - 560064.
2. Sri. M.Subramanya, S/o. Late Angadi Muninanjappa, Aged about 48 years, R/at Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District – 560064 At Present Residing at C/o. B.R.Muni Kumar, #1, Dhanyatha, 2nd Floor, 1st Main Road, 3rd Cross, (Opp. MIMS) GKVK Layout, Jakkur, Bengaluru-560064.
3. The Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Workers’ HBCS Ltd., having its office At No.10, Jasma Bhavan, Bengaluru-560064 Represented by its Special officer Sri. N.Lakshman …Appellants …Respondents (By Sri. Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, Advocate for R1, Sri. Suresh S Lokre, Advocate for R2, Sri. Pradeep Singh, Advocate for R3) This RFA is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.7758/2016 on the file of the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, Decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction.
These Regular First Appeals coming on for orders this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT In all these appeals the applicants/appellants were not parties in the suits O.S.No.1529/2014, O.S.No.1532/2014, O.S.No.1534/2014 and O.S.No.7758/2016. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1529/2014 sought for declaring that the sale agreement dated 05.08.1992 was barred by limitation and not binding on the them. In O.S.No.1532/2014, the plaintiffs sought for a similar declaration in respect of sale agreements dated 05.08.1992 and 31.10.1989. In O.S.No.1534/2014, in respect of agreement dated 27.07.1992, a declaration to that effect was sought. In O.S.7758/2016 same declaration in respect of agreement of sale dated 03.08.1992 was sought. The trail court decreed all these suits holding that these agreements are time barred and do not bind the plaintiffs.
2. The applicants/appellants have made applications under Section 151 CPC seeking leave of this court to prefer these appeals. In the affidavits sub- joined with the applications, it is stated that registered agreements of sale as mentioned above were executed by the respondents 1 to 4 in the appeals in favour of Karnataka State Khadi and Village Industries Workers House Building Co-operative Society (“Housing Society” for short). At the time of executing agreements of sale, general power of attorney was also executed in favour of office bearers of the said Housing Society. Pursuant to this power of attorney the sale deeds were executed in favour of the applicants/appellants. When the applicants/appellants came to know about the suits filed against the said Housing Society and others, some of the applicants wanted to get themselves impleaded in some of the suits and therefore they made applications under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, but the applications were dismissed. They state that they do have interest in the subject matter of the suit. Actually they were necessary parties. The impugned judgments and decree affect their interest and therefore they have every right to question and challenge the judgments of the trial court. They are aggrieved persons.
3. These applications are opposed by the plaintiffs / respondents and also the Housing Society, which was one of the defendants in the suit.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants/appellants viz., Sri. M.R. Rajagopal and Sri.
S.N. Ashwathanarayana have argued that the interest of the applicants/appellants are directly involved in the subject matter of the suit. They have become absolute owners of the sites allotted to them by the Housing Society and they have sale deeds in respect of those sites. The judgment of the trial court actually affects their interest as they are in possession. The trial court has not only declared the sale agreements as barred by time, but has also granted decree of permanent injunction. They submit that the applicants/appellants have filed some documents to show that they are actually in possession of the sites which were formed in the lands that are comprised in the agreements of sale. It is a fact that their applications Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC were dismissed by the trial court, yet they can challenge the decree being affected persons. In support of their arguments, they have placed reliance on the following judgments.
1. (1974) 2 SCC 70 – State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh and another – Para 83;
2. (2013) 9 SCC 261 – Hardevinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh and others – Para 26 ;
3. (2016) 13 SCC 124 – Union of India Vs. K.V.Lakshman and others;
4. (2007) 4 SCC 221 – A.V.Papayya Sastry and others Vs. Government of A.P.and others;
5. (1994) 1 SCC 1 – S.P.Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and others.
5. The counsel for the respondents argues that the applicants/appellants should not be permitted to prefer the appeal. They are not aggrieved persons. Once their applications were dismissed by the trial court, they cannot seek to indirectly come on record in the proceedings under the guise of aggrieved persons. If at all they have acquired right in the subject matter of the suits, they have to establish the same by filing independent suits. Sri. Suresh S. Lokre, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents argues that it is not the psychological fear that gives a person who is not a party to the suit a right to prefer an appeal, but he should be a person really aggrieved. In this case, the appellants have a psychological fear and nothing more. Even the counsel appearing for the Housing Society/Respondent argues that the applicants/ appellants cannot prefer appeals as the sale deeds appear to have been executed in favour of the applicants/appellants by mis-using Society’s name.
6. After hearing the learned counsel, it has to be stated that the applicants/appellants do not satisfy the definition of “aggrieved persons” to seek leave of this court to prefer these appeals. In all the judgments that the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants have referred to, a general principle has been laid down that an aggrieved person need not be a party to the suit, and if such person demonstrates that he is affected by the decree, he can prefer an appeal. This principle is well established and therefore there is no need to refer to each of the judgment that has been cited. The question to be examined here is whether the applicants are really aggrieved and affected persons.
7. It is true that the trial court has granted a very peculiar declaratory relief which in my opinion the plaintiffs in the suit could have set up by way of defence had they been sued by the Housing Society for specific performance. Be that as it may, all the applicants/appellants claim to be in possession of their respective sites on the strength of sale deeds executed by the general power of attorney holders of the owners of the lands. What is stated is that the agreements of sale were executed in favour of the Housing Society and that power of attorney was executed in favour of some persons who are office bearers of the Housing Society. If this is the position, I think that the applicants/appellants do have an independent right which they appear to have derived on the basis of the sale deeds executed by the owners of the land. It may be a fact that sale deeds were executed by the power of attorney holders of the owners, but in reality those sale deeds were executed by the owners of the land and therefore it can be said that the nature of declaratory relief granted by the trial court in the suits does not affect the interest of the applicants/appellants. If they are in possession of the sites purchased by them, they have to protect their possession by filing independent suits. I do not think they have a remedy by filing appeals challenging the judgment in the suit. The applicants have produced number of documents in support of their claim and they have also made applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It is clear that they want to rely upon these documents to assert their right over the sites which they claim to have purchased. If the applicants/appellants are permitted to prefer the appeals by considering the documents that they have produced, the scope of the suits will enlarge to decide the title of the applicants/appellants which is not permitted. Therefore these applications do not deserve consideration. They are dismissed and consequently RFA.No.1434/2017, RFA.No. 1435/2017, RFA.No. 1436/2017, RFA.No.1775/2017 & RFA.No.512/2018 are dismissed. The other interlocutory applications filed by the applicants do not survive.
SD/- JUDGE sd