IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 52781/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI BYRANNA @ KUMAR, S/O LATE APPANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.462, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS KAMALANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 079. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI M.C. JAYAKIRTHI ADV., ) AND:
1. SRI. B. H. BYRAIAH S/O. LATE HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24/2, 5TH MAIN, RANAGANATHPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE-560 079.
2 . SRI. HONNAPPA @ RAJU S/O. LATE APPANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTHAGERE PALYA, KOTHAGERE POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130.
3 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. B.H. BYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24/2, 5TH MAIN, RANAGANATHPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE-560 079.
4 . SMT. THIMMARAJAMMA D/O. LATE PATEL. HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT. MADANAYAKANAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560 057.
5 . SMT. RAJAMMA, D/O. LATE PATEL HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT. SHIVAKRUPA, OPP. URBB, B.M. ROAD, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.P. SATHISH ADV., FOR R-1 & R-3, SRI S.C. VIJAYAKUMAR ADV., FOR R-4 & R-5, R-2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.IV DATED:27.08.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.176 OF 2012 FROM THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NELAMANGALA AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is the 1st defendant in a suit for partition filed by the 1st respondent. In this suit for partition, respondents 4 and 5 herein made an application to implead themselves. They contended that the suit schedule properties were mortgaged to their father under a registered Deed of Mortgage dated 16.01.1949 (which was registered on 27.01.1949) and pursuant to which, their father was put in possession and after his death, they had continued in possession. In the application filed, it is also contended that the mortgage in respect of the suit schedule properties is not redeemed and the mortgage is subsisting.
2. It cannot be disputed that the registered Mortgage Deed is in respect of suit schedule property under which respondents 4 and 5 claimed to have acquired right.
3. In view of the fact that respondents 4 and 5 are claiming a right in the suit schedule property by way of a registered deed, they are, in my view, both necessary and proper parties to the suit. The Trial Court has rightly held that they deserve to come on record and no infirmity can be found in the order by which they are permitted to come on record as defendants 4 and 5.
4. It is however made clear that all the contentions regarding rights or liabilities of defendants 4 and 5 are to be established in a manner known to law and nothing stated in the application is to be construed as accepting the right on them over the suit schedule properties.
5. Both the learned counsel pray that a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously since the same is pending for the past seven years.
6. In view of the said request, I hereby direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from today. Both the parties are directed to co-operate in conduct of the suit. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS