IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15666/2017(GM-CPC) BETWEEN :
Sri B.L.Srinivas Aged about 56 years Son of late K.N.Lakkanna No.404, 7th Main Road 2nd Block, Jayanagar Bengaluru-560 011.
…Petitioner (By Sri V.B.Shivakumar, Advocate) AND :
1. Smt. B.L.Kamala Aged about 50 years Daughter of K.N.Lakkanna No.4, Marshall Road, Laxington, MA 82420 Represented by her Power of Attorney holder Ms.P.S.Rekha Rani D/o Mr.P.K.Shankar Residing at No.69/A, 31st Cross 7th Block, Jayanagar Bengaluru-560 082.
2. Sri B.L.Prakash Aged about 51 years Son of late K.N.Lakkanna No.404, 7th Main Road 2nd Block, Jayanagar Bengaluru-560 011.
3. Sri B.L.Kantharaj Aged about 50 years Son of late K.N.Lakkanna No.404, 7th Main Road 2nd Block, Jayanagar Bengaluru-560 011.
4. Smt.Bangaramma Aged about 72 years Wife of late K.N.Lakkanna No.404, 7th Main Road 2nd Block, Jayanagar Bengaluru-560 011.
5. Sri H.Sadananda Hande S/o Patel Ramadev Hande Aged about 66 years Residing at No.28 12th Main, 12th Block Jayanagar East Bengaluru-560 001.
…Respondents (By Sri Venkatesh B.C., Advocate for R1 and R2) This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order I.A.No.21 under Section 151 of CPC quashing the order dated 14.3.2017 passed by VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in FDP No.56/2001 at Annexure-A; and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Order dated 14.3.2017 passed by VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in FDP.No.56/2001 allowing I.A.No.XXI filed by respondents 3 and 4 conditionally namely authorizing 4th respondent from obtaining sale deed from BDA, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
3. First respondent herein had filed the suit O.S.No.2122/1982 for partition and separate possession and on suit being decreed, final decree proceedings came to be initiated in FDP.No.56/2001. One of the properties involved in the suit namely, ‘B’ Schedule property is a property allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority in favour of the original propositus which is now the subject matter of the final decree proceedings. Since the absolute sale deed has not been executed by the Bangalore Development Authority, I.A.Nos.17 and 18 came to be filed and trial Court by its order dated 15.9.2012 allowed the said applications and directed all the parties to the proceedings, namely petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 to collectively obtain registered sale deed from the Bangalore Development Authority in their joint names. For the reasons best known sale deed was not obtained by the parties. Allegations are made by both the parties that on account of non co-operation sale deed could not be obtained. Hence, it has resulted in application in question being filed by respondents 3 and 4, namely, I.A.No.XXI under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to authorise respondent No.4 to obtain sale deed from Bangalore Development Authority in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property for and on behalf of the family members. Said application as noticed hereinabove has been allowed conditionally by trial Court authorizing 4th respondent to obtain the sale deed in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property in her name for and on behalf of the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4. To allay the apprehension of the writ petitioner, i.e., respondent No.1 that by virtue of sale deed being registered in the name of 4th respondent, she may likely set up title to herself, trial Court has made it clear under the impugned order itself that registration of sale deed in the name of the 4th respondent would not create any exclusive right in her favour, and it will be for and on behalf of petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 and they shall have the very same right and share granted to them. In the other words, trial Court itself has ensured that mere execution of sale deed by the Bangalore Development Authority in favour of respondent No.4 by itself would not create any title in the name of 4th respondent but it would be subject to preliminary decree already drawn allotting shares in favour of petitioner and respondents 1 to 4.
In that view of the matter, order passed by trial Court would not call for interference. No other good ground is made out. Writ Petition being devoid of merits, it stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE *ck/-