IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 23" DAY OF FEBREuA..é§f.2oTTijoEa% '
BEFORE"-.V 3
THE HON'BLE MR.3usV*i"£(i':E Ravi 's~*!4§LIi~4A*1f;H
WRIT PETITIoI\{NQ.A 1 7.1fi?3 .VenkaiianafiasiTT91"hai_a'§{,'e_' '
S/0 la.teT"Puttanar'a:::3'appa
Sincejdead b"y7_~hi_:3_ E.R's»,_
1. K.v;Ha'rayanamLQrt§3'y.._i_"'T
S/0 Iate_VA;vP.VVenk.atanarasimhaiah
Hindp, nowag'ed 65 years.
" 2," !<..\}-]'L$;'e}m&gopaI """ "
-VS/e_V4|at;e-.A;P_.\/enkatanarasimhaiah
Him-dfu/,_Tzrjw.-vaged about 56 years.
3A."-._K.V__;'Kee.hava (Keshava Murthy)
S50 {ate A.P.Venl<atanarasimhaiah
EA Since dead by his LR's
A' Smtt. K.Anitha
D/0 late K.V.Keshava
Hindu now aged 27 years.
3(b) Smt. K.Savitha
D/0 late K.V.Keshava
-2-
Hindu now aged 25 years.
3(c) Prakash Babu
S/0 iate K.V.Keshava
Hindu, now aged 34 years.
3(d) Thungesh (Thungesh Kumar)Hm
S/o late K.\/.Keshava
Hindu, now aged 41 years.'.__
3(e) Dinesh Kumar
S/o late Keshava
Since dead by his LR
3(e)(a) Smt.MafathiV
W/oiate Dinesh.r_Kumar;"
Hindu,..now age--d_312'yea_rs} .o
3(f) :v;Ga_n_é§itut',_-V' _ _'
"S/0 4fai:e_ K.\}'-._i;<eshv.a " _
H'indu_, now aged'2_9"years.
3(g)' ~ Devarajo '@'Ma'dhu
ZS/oxiate K'.«\/.,._KeshAva (he is actually s/o
V "K".\/."N.arayanamurthy but wrongly arrayed)
~Hindu,"rnow aged 31 years.
"E?e'titioVne.r's; 2, 3(c) to 3(g) are
R/«at |\£_o;3V3"~; Shanthi Nilaya
Ashwa'thai<atte Main Road,
AAKasth't:--."bha Nagara, Bangafore -- 26.
Smt. Kavya Lokesh @ Babitha
D/o fate K,V.Keshava
Hindu now aged 35 years.
Petitioners 3(a), (1)) 8: 3(h) are
Ail r/at No.9/1, 2"" Cross, Mariyappa
flak
Block, Dinnur Main Road,
R.T.Nagar,
Bangalore 560 032. ...pET:TIoNE,RSj«_l'~--_
(By Sri T.C.Sathish Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
T.Gangadharaswamy
S/o late Thimmaiah
Since dead by his LR's
1. Smt. T.Gowramm.a" _ _ , .
W/o late Gangadha'raswamy{.,' j,
Hindu, Major. '~ _ 1
Shashikuma"r"* afii: --
S/o late Gangadha'ra:sv_vamy..,, -- '
Hindu, Major. ' '
Ravlshankar = V'
S/o late ;Gan,gadha*-raVsw'amy
Vilindu, ,_M-339;.' _____ _.
Fi'e.s'pon'd--»entsV'i~ are residing at
No.i19,-Ania-nfe.yVa Temple Street,
7'i._,___cubbcnpet, Bangalore ~ 550 oo2.
Sm}.-. \/.La::haa._
v.".£},{o"'Eate Gangadharaswamy
Wfio» M.'Vi-shwanath
l?ii,nd=iJ,'»M.ajor.
$mt.._Choodamani
D,',o late Gangadharaswamy
"W/o Rajendra
Hindu, Major.
Wt
*%"r"
Respondents No.4 and 5 are residing at
No.23, Ramaiah Gatli,
Cubbonpen
Bangaiore — 560 002.
Smt. K.Shakunthala
D/o late Gangadharaswamy
W/0 H.Keshvamurthy
Hindu, Major
R/at No.19, 29″‘ Cross,
Cubbonpet, ‘ ,
Bangalore – 560 oo’z._t’A
S.Vasantna.::’
D/o late’ Gan3;adh.a’raéw’amy ; V ” V
W/o Sifdda_gai”sga__ppa,;.,_ ‘ ”
Hindu, Majoz’, ” ‘
R/.at~–.’\*o3 ?r85,”€;a.ni’g.ara pet}-~~–
RamaChar’,St_re’et, ‘ ‘
Ky’ath’asand’raf,”A._ % r _ ._ _.
1’umi<_ur VDiStr_i<':t.."– _ "
Smt. Anna ooorna V'
_~=D/o_"iatVe Ga'r'rga._d.haraswamy
A W/*o"Nag.ara3'
..HEn_dur,:'Major.
. amt; ttr.str:otb:aa
‘—..__D/ov~IateF’Gangadharaswamy
W./o.rVP. M . La kshminarayana
x T Hindi}, Major.
H * Fgespondents 8 & 9 are resrdmg at
Siddanna Lane, Cubbonpet,
Bangalore ~ 560 002.
AH are represented by their GPA
Hoider Sr: B.V.JInesh Kumar
Division), Nelamangala. Various appiications were filed by
beth the parties. The L.R. of the plaintiff flied an
application under Order 11 Rule 16 of
production of the lease deed dated 30–5–19i5§’
said to be in the possession of the'”p’etitio’.ners{ciVe.fend’.a.ntlg..i
By the impugned order the petiltioriersly
produce the original of the deed…with_’i~_n
from the date of the said order’ ta_il:in’g»i.yyhich ‘the~d§efence to
be struck off. Aggrieyeti the present
Petition is
2. it ._T;i.,;’S.a.thishkumar, learned counsel
ap»piear_ilr.gV for””th,e ____ petitioner contends that the subject
*n1a.tte–r_”ofe._t’he suit schedule property is one involving
‘terira’ncy.u-“.’j-:Tl2at the petitioners-defendants were granted
tenlancyy the Land Tribunal, Nelamangaia, by the order
2 lAd’at..edVV3O-11-1979. The same were questioned before
dyarlious Forums and ultimately culminated in the order of
it “”Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.12516/1984. In
consideration of the matter of tenancy, the iease deed
9&4”
dated 38-54963, the basis of which the te.n.§-;i’nV¢y”‘~:”‘}J’li”Va’S.
claimed, was the subject matter of the dispute:
Land Tribunal and the same vi.-as-;’l
stage by the Hon’bie Supreme The’rr§foA.rVe’,~.VVL
the issue with regard to the”‘i«’iy:a!.idity cryoif the
lease deed dated tenancy
of the petitioners has Therefore, no
proceedings schedule property
is conceri”-i’ed..;-4″”_y.’wt
” 4′ TheRespoéjn-d_e’nt’s’ counsel was absent on the
previonsV’id.ayi. and éitheirfiatter was adjourned. Even as on
tc_z*diay:,__fr:eVV is .a’b–seyn_t_._. I have heard the learned counsel for
‘ ,ft’r-.e. pet3’tiO€]é’r’S_.
irrespective of the contentions of the learned
xcounsveit’ for the petitioners, which is pertaining to tenancy
the suit schedule properties being the lands and the
gitenancy which has been granted to the defendants, the
same cannot be questioned in a Civil Court. The said
__/:/ i a—…
/
_8…..
contention has been taken by the petitioners,~i,n”~.._th.eir
written statement. Therefore, the trial Courtsihloiuilg-L:.,.hTatr.e”.
considered the maintainability o_f_th_e suit”‘o’r:’_’ot’rierwise4.
Failure to do so, has led to the suit be’i’r’ig:’peri_d’inc_’; sliniicie’ the
year 1980. In this view of ‘th’e._rnat’t’e.r’,V: I
necessary to direct the triaIV__:Cio-urt»_t_»o cons_ir;l:erH_fthe issue
with regard to the mairitainabilit»yjiof’-.t’he:’s.u’it, in view of the
contention that _theg”sruit’A tenanted
properties4..a.nd5i:t.iie. ?«cu:lrjnin___atijon the proceedings
regarding in
Sf 4′ It the bar that the Issues have
beenfrtameldr-.an’d”” the matteriis set down for evidence.
!*fowe\rE”efr, :”ri~r)_ Issuemhas been framed with regard to the
of the suit which appears to be a
prer|.imi_§riar\f~”objection of the defendants. Therefore, untii
and ..’v..u;niess an Issue with regard to the
it ‘i.Vrrii»air1étainability of the suit is considered it would be wholly
2 irrelevant to consider other Issues on merits.
M”
In view of the specific contentions raised, the trial
Court is hereby directed to frame a preiirriénary issue with
regard to the maintainabiiity of the suit.
parties are at iiberty to fiie necessary
regardnto the said issue. The trial ‘Court
pass appropriate orders in accorda’nce._i/iriith with
to the preliminary issue withi.;j’?”a._%peri.od__ o’f.tw,Q ”iaieei<s'':from''' '
the date of receipt ofvrzopy oft-ti'ei:§_:0r'ti'=':_r.
Rsi<i£–.r" V .' at