IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No. 39170/2014 (GM-CPC) Between:
Sri. K. C. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. Chokkappa, Aged 35 years, R/at No.727, 3-C, 8th Main Road, 1st Block, HRBR Layout, Kalyannagar, Bangalore 560 043.
… Petitioner (By Sri. M. B. Chandra Chooda, Adv.) And:
1. Smt. R. Mala D/o. Late Rajagopalan, Aged 63 years, R/at No.63, 1st Floor, Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore 560 028.
2. Smt. Chitra Annaswamy W/o. T. V. Annaswamy, Aged 73 years, R/at No.1, Arcot House, Kingston Street, Richmond Town, Bangalore 560 025.
3. Sri. Nagaraj V S/o. Late T. A. Venkatrao, Aged 53 years, R/at No.3425, 2nd Floor, 2nd Stage, 10th Main Road, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore 560 078.
4. Sri. T. N. Venugopala Reddy S/o. T. V. Narasi Reddy, Aged 37 years, R/at Chikkatekahalli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District 562 105.
5. Sri. T. Srinivas Reddy S/o. Late R. Thimma Reddy, Aged 50 years.
6. Sri. T. Nanda Gopal S/o. Late R. Thimma Reddy, Aged 46 years.
7. Sri. T. Rajesh S/o. Late R. Thimma Reddy, Aged 43 years.
The respondents 5 to 7 are R/at No.34, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main road, R. K. Kuvempu Road, B. Channasandra, Kalyannagar Post, Bangalore 560 043.
(By Sri. N. Bayya Reddy, Adv. for R5-R7 R1, R3 & R4 – Sd.) …Respondents This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 05.07.2014 passed on I.A.4 in O.S.No.4574/2012 on the file of the 42nd Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-43) vide Annexure-J.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioner who is the 3rd defendant before the trial Court has filed the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 05.07.2014 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.4574/2012 whereby the trial Court has allowed the application permitting the impleading applicants, who were proposed defendants 5 to 7 and are respondents 5 to 7 in the present proceedings, to come on record.
2. It is to be noted that in the suit that has been filed, plaintiff sought for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to the property in Sy.No.111/5 measuring 30 guntas of Kowdenahalli Village, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, morefully described in the plaint schedule.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the purchaser of the suit schedule property by way of a sale deed dated 12.03.2010 from defendant No.1. It is further submitted that petitioner in turn has executed a sale deed dated 10.06.2011 in favour of the 4th defendant.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that admittedly, plaintiff and existing defendants claim to be in possession of the property. That being so, the application filed by the proposed impleading applicants would clearly enlarge the scope of the suit from mere considering of the injunctive relief by the trial Court. It is further submitted that it is not in dispute that the impleading applicants have set up a rival claim to the ownership of the property and trace the ownership through their grand father. It is further contended that in light of the pleadings already on record allowing the impleading application would only result in taking the scope of the suit beyond the relief of mere injunction.
5. Learned counsel for the impleading applicants submits that there are other allegations pending between the parties and that the relief if any granted in the present proceedings would be made use of by the parties in the present proceedings to the detriment or prejudice of impleading applicants. It is further submitted that the present proceedings are collusive in nature.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment in the case of SRI. VARDHAMAN STANAKVISI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH V. CHANDRAKUMAR AND ANOTHER reported in 1983(2) Kar.L.J.889 and contends that in similar circumstances, the impleading application filed in a suit for injunction was rejected.
7. Heard both sides. The question is as to whether the impugned order allowing the application for impleading ought to be sustained.
8. It is clear that the title through which the defendants claim is through the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 on 12.03.2010. It is also not in dispute that defendant No.3 who is the petitioner herein has executed a sale deed dated 10.06.2011 in favour of defendant No.4. The impleading applicants claim title through their grand father – Late Sri. Kasavanahalli Ramaiah. It is further submitted that their grand father had purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed dated 06.04.1937 and that there were further proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams and after a detailed enquiry, after deciding on the claims with respect to the said property, the said land was granted in favour of the grand father of the impleading applicants by order dated 18.10.1960 and title has flown to the impleading applicants from their grand father.
9. It is clear that apart from the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants, both of whom claim to be in possession of the land and have set up their case through the pleadings on record, the impleading applicants are seeking to put forth an independent claim. The scope of an injunction suit ought not to be enlarged by accommodating new claims by impleading applicants. If it is that the impleading applicants have any cause of action as against the plaintiff or defendants or have any apprehension as regards the misuse of the order or decree that is to be passed, it is always open for the impleading applicants to take necessary action in accordance with law. No doubt the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the impleading application has been rightly allowed so as to prevent multiplicity of proceedings but taking note of the fact that the suit for injunction is an action in personam and not an action in rem and also taking note of the nature of claim put forth by the impleading applicants, it would be proper that the impugned order is set aside reserving liberty to the impleading applicants to take necessary action in accordance with law both against the defendants and plaintiff if so found necessary. All contentions of the impleading applicants are kept open. Taking note that the suit is of the year 2012, the trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously taking note of seniority of the present suit viz-a-viz other matters.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VP