IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.55885 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Sri.V.Anil Reddy S/o K.Venkataramana Reddy (K.V.Reddy) Aged about 46 years Permanently residing at No.2/13 Nicholas Drive, Sandy Bay Hobart 7005, Australia Represented by the Power of Attorney Holder Sri.B.Bavadeep Reddy.
... PETITIONER (By Sri.M.N.Umesh for Sri.A.Madhusudhana Rao, Advocates) AND:
1. Sri.K.Venkataramana Reddy Also known as K.V.Reddy S/o late Krishnappa Reddy Aged about 77 years R/at No.21, 1st Floor 12th Main Road, 14th Cross Wilson Garden Bengaluru – 560 030.
2. Sri.K.Lakshmaiah Reddy Also known as K.L.Reddy S/o late Krishnappa Reddy Aged about 82 years R/at No.4677 Rolling Ridge, West Bloomfield Michigan – 48323, USA 3. Smt.V.Aruna Reddy W/o G.Ravindra Reddy Aged about 48 years R/at No.19, 12th Main Road Wilson Garden Bengaluru – 560 030.
4. Sri.L.Samarth Reddy S/o K.Lakshmaiah Reddy (K.L.Reddy) Aged about 46 years R/at No.6001, Via Venitia North Delray Beach Florida – 33484, USA.
5. Miss.L.Ajitha Reddy D/o K.Lakshmaiah Reddy (K.L.Reddy) Aged about 44 years R/at No.444, West Belmont Rd, Unit 4B, Chicago IL-60657, USA.
6. Smt.Sharadamma W/o late K.Narayana Reddy Aged about 79 years R/at No.2009 Wama Ibbani Apartments Kasavanahalli Bengaluru – 560 037.
7. Smt.K.N.Vijayalakshmi W/o Sri.A.R.Shivaram D/o late K.Narayan Reddy Aged about 61 years R/at No.670, 6th Cross 3rd Block, Koramangala Bengaluru – 560 034.
8. Sri.K.N.Ravindranath S/o late K.Narayana Reddy Aged about 56 years R/at No.2009 Wama Ibbani Apartments Kasavanahalli Bengaluru – 560 037.
9. Sri.K.N.Mohan S/o late K.Narayana Reddy Aged about 55 years R/at No.446, 28th Main 1st Sector, HSR Layout Bengaluru – 560 102.
10. Smt.Radhamma W/o late K.Srinivasa Reddy Aged about 72 years R/at No.45, Kasavanahalli Bengaluru – 560 037.
11. Sri.K.S.Suresh S/o late K.Srinivasa Reddy Aged about 54 years R/at No.45, Kasavanahalli Bengaluru – 560 037.
12. Sri.K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy S/o late K.Srinivasa Reddy Aged about 52 years R/at No.45, Kasavanahalli Bengaluru – 560 037.
13. Sri.K.S.Satish S/o late K.Srinivasa Reddy Aged about 47 years R/at No.45, Kasavanahalli Bengaluru – 560 037.
14. Sri.A.N.Subhas Chandra S/o late A.V.Narasimha Reddy Aged about 67 years R/at First Floor, Block No.20 Radiance Corporate Leisure Sun City Apartments Ibbalur Village Bengaluru South Taluk Bengaluru – 560 034.
15. Sri.A.N.Linga Reddy S/o late A.V.Narasimha Reddy Aged about 65 years R/at No.1, Kotemane 10th ‘A’ Main Indiranagar 2nd Stage Bengaluru – 560 038.
16. Smt.Y.P.Hemamalini Reddy W/o late A.N.Raja Venkat Reddy Aged about 46 years R/at No.53/18, 2nd Cross 2nd Main, Laljinagar Lakkasandra Bengaluru – 560 030.
17. Smt.A.N.Saraswathi D/o late A.V.Narasimha Reddy Aged about 59 years R/at First Floor, Block No.20 Radiance Corporate Leisure Sun City Apartments Ibbalur Village Bengaluru South Taluk Bengaluru – 560 034.
18. Miss.S.Likitha Lakshmi D/o K.S.Suresh Aged about 25 years R/at No.45 Kasavanahalli Bengaluru – 560 037.
19. Sri.S.Nikhil Reddy Aged about 21 years S/o K.S.Suresh R/at No.45, Kasavanahalli Bengaluru – 560 037.
20. M/s.SJR Builders A partnership firm Having its office at No.49 27th Main Road 1st Stage, BTM Layout Bengaluru – 560 068 Rep by its Partner Sri.J.Vijay Reddy And also at M/s.SJR Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Having its registered office at SJR Primus, 7th Floor 1-Koramangala Industrial Estate Bengaluru – 560 095.
21. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) A company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 Having its territory office At “DU-PARC” Trinity 7th Floor, 17, M.G.Road Bengaluru – 560 001 Rep by its Territory Manager (Retail) Mr.Rajeev Kumar 22. M/s.The Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru Presently known as KPTCL Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Having its registered office at Ananda Rao Circle Race Course Road Bengaluru – 560 009.
23. Sri.K.P.Champakadamaswamy S/o Sri.K.S.Puttaswamy Major Hon Secretary M/s.The Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Presently known as KPTCL Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Having its registered office at Ananda Rao Circle Race Course Road Bengaluru – 560 009.
24. M/s.Golden Gate Projects A partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act Having its registered office at No.96, 1st Floor, 4th ‘B’ Block Koramangala Extension Bengaluru – 560 034 Rep by its Partner Sri.S.Martin S/o Sri.Santhiago And also at M/s.Golden Gate Projects Having its registered office at No.58/A, 2nd Floor 80 Feet Road, 8th Block Koramangala Bengaluru – 560 095.
25. The Commissioner Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike N.R.Square, Hudson Circle Bengaluru – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 13.11.2017 passed by learned I Addl. City Civil Judge [CCH-25] Bangalore on I.A.No.10 in O.S.No.66/2016 found at Annexure-L, allow this W.P. and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order dated 13.11.2017 on I.A.No.10 made in O.S.No.66/2016 dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure to implead the BBMP as additional defendant.
2. The present petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.66/2016 filed MFA Nos.1693/2016 and 1909/2016 before this Court against the order dated 17.02.2016 dismissing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. This Court after hearing both the parties, by an order dated 25.05.2017 disposed of the appeals and held as under:
“That it is suffice to observe that any transaction held prior to filing of the suit in respect of the suit schedule properties will not be binding on the plaintiff and any transaction took place between the contesting defendants subsequent to filing of the suit would always be hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and even if the suit schedule properties are developed by the contesting defendants, they would be doing so at their own risk of sharing the benefits of the development in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff’s share. Therefore, the plaintiff has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court at this stage. However, in the interest of justice, it is needless to observe that the defendants or subsequent purchasers shall not entitle to claim any equity in case the plaintiff succeeds in the suit.
Further, this Court held as under:
“in view of the serious dispute between the parties in respect of the suit schedule properties and taking into consideration that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute, it directed the trial Court to decide the suit itself expeditiously in order to resolve the dispute between the parties. All parties must co-operate in the early hearing and disposal of the suit.
With the above observations, both the Miscellaneous First Appeals are disposed of.
However, it is made clear that any observations made by the trial Court or this Court while considering the interlocutory applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall not come in the way of either of the parties to establish their respective cases independently before the trial Court after adjudication of both oral and documentary evidence.”
3. Against the said order passed by this Court, 2nd defendant filed a Special Leave to Appeal No.18682/2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by an order dated 08.08.2017, dismissed the appeals and observed as follows:
“The parties are before this Court, aggrieved by the denial of an interim order in a partition suit. They have not been successful in the High Court also. In the impugned order passed the High Court, the High Court has provided for several safeguards to protect the interest of the parties, in addition to the safeguards made by the High Court.
We make it clear that in case any transaction in respect of the suit property is made, it shall be made clear in the document that the transaction is subject to the result of the suit.”
4. Therefore, application by the plaintiff to implead BBMP on the ground that the defendant No.13 has executed the relinquishment deed dated 15.09.2016 in favour of proposed defendant-respondent No.25 herein and said alienation has been made during the pendency of the suit and therefore, he is the necessary party cannot be accepted.
5. The trial Court considering the application and objections by the impugned order dismissed the application mainly on the ground that in view of observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court safeguarding the interest of both the parties, held that if any transaction in respect of suit schedule property is made during the pendency of the suit, the same shall be subject to result of the suit and also recorded a finding that very transaction during the pendency of the suit is always hit by provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. The trial Court further held that if the parties are allowed to go on impleading such transferee pendent lite, no case can reach its logical end. In order to substantiate his view, the learned Judge referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (2) KCCR SN 41 in the case of SANJAY VERMA VS. MANIK ROY AND OTHERS and rejected the application. The same is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court by exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*