N C Basavaraju vs Smt Basamma W/O Channabasavaiah on 7 March, 2008

, has filed written statement to the suit.

fiied i.A.2 under Order 1 Ruie :16 of tee

L

0 permit them te

get lmpieaded as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. I.A.2 was

opposed by the plaintiff by mine the statement of

\/

hearing learned counsel for the,AApertiee*,””trl§i’e

dismissed I.A.2 vlde its order iietlltioraars ‘

being aggrieved, have flied this vi:-itipstitsoh aueldeii»

the order of the trial Court_:pheseo’_ arid to allow

the prayer in I.A.2.

2. Heordtsri. learned counsel
for the apetlgtiohersl: “Inna Shelter, learned

is no representation for

e envs’ .r”:reependeot”-1. “l”her

th.eir.._1’iat~rful right, title and interest in the suit schedule

.. ‘properties. Learned counsel pointed out that in the

it ‘efilidavit in support of I.A.2, petitioners have stated that

under a Panchayat Paiupatti dated 10.3.1992, their

parents Le. plaintiff and defendant in the suit, divided the

A I
3U|

PI’
3}
:r
H)
ca.

5?.

or
’55
c:

‘:5
gr
1:!
an
::

:3.

£1′
:3-

on
U!
E’
:3
no
::i-

ll
4:

an
E3.’
ii”

:3
3′
:1′
in

-e

strres and on that ‘oasis and on the iifi’3iS=’=3f

Palupatti, mutation was executed,’ and _i<'atn'e"_:ainri v'Panam~~ 5

have also been made out in'~e:4th+eir.. 7reep1ecti've"VI§namee.

Learned counsel contenaanggnat trial:Co_u4rtWnéitnoet*

examining the claim of the':-»rn_etitionere_:ln the proper

by megrrettlng ghee :,»;__ea.
irreoaratlle _and'jnrej:udi__ce;to tiiern, apart from leading

to multinltci't;r1".;_9f Learned counsel further
contend_edthat._:i'i:he'~.trlva_I Court has not examined the
matter accordancetinitht. law while passing the order on

IV'.;§\;2,e.impugnedtherein.

V T_ _ 'contra, Sri. B.T. Indu Shekar, learned counsel

.'eanoea.ringi_V..:'for the 1" respondent contended that,

" A 'A .-.auIn
_ Ulr. the u5'I'. huudifi fit' |'TifirI.IE"'a,

petltionere have no manner of lawful right, title or interest

In

they base their claim is a created document to knock off

valuable properties of the plaintiff and even otherwise the

same is inadmissible document and as such their claim to

\/="'

h;

1|

the suit properties is false and untenable. Leo:rned’V’.eotin.SeI~..’

further submitted that, the petitioners ‘ e.

and proper parties for adjudicotion’.A_’_ofV the

13′

urt auu hence the trtel f:eert–. is–»..,.:stifi-ed..i:r:… dismissing

C)

I.A.2. Learned counisei:medeilsuibhnissioyns in support of
the impugned. order. H V

5. 1′ §o3js§derr’rg_:tne rive: -‘ontentions and on perosei
of recordpthe poiéints..the:t arises for consideration is;

” Whethefr*.:’Vthe'<."triai Court has properly

e:-':e.-deed jtmedictton vested in !t Ln pest-lug

the impuaned order?

. ..whetéh”erAthe petitioners are necessary and
y opro_per parties?

rd

Where is no deep-…e that the petitioners ere the

A chiidren of respondents 1 and .2. “esponde”ts 1 and 2 are

‘w..hnsbend and wife. Respondent 1 being the wife of

respondent 2,’has flied the suit seeking declaration that

the registered document No.1198/56-57, registered in the

office of Sub Registrar, Kunioai by her parents to be a

\/

/..

eve erisen for consideratiori~w..of the .su!tVA’oefere”ti1’e tri-oi’

nominal document and not exe:;’uted.«o:’ 4_

misrepresentation, coercion ete.:,~~end defendant’ ‘ ;

cannot be held to have acquired’i4an§friohtytitlevor

her as the ahsehrte av.-her ef the stat echedhle hrehertées,

having inherited the eame of her parents.
There is also prayer and alternate
prayer dead’ if found
to for partition and to allot

halfilsharee reliefs. The case of the

ee.it|eri’ers.; vvhe hleretrae chlld-rear. ef the r-..e,e-endente is
that, the suit schedule properties ‘oelone t’ their frther,

vh Vfresp.ovn«dent~2__,_ who has improved the same. It is their case

reepondents Le. parents, got divided the suit

eehedule ‘properties under Panchayat Palupattl and the sult

V ” Visehedlule properties were allotted in their favour, on the

‘heels of whlch, the Katha has been transferred to their

rar-he and ehtrtes lh the Pahahé have came to. he made.

flay allege that to the Panchavath Paiupatti dated

10.2.1992, the 1″‘ respondent has put her LTM. They have
\

X

ver the saree;~v~.._she’t’has’ declare’ T

q\.

further stated that the piaintilf suppressing 4_

facts, has flied the suit against. the ‘ree4pondeht:”‘2.4_et the ~ g

instigation of her son-in-law and;’the5_A_suiVt is~av”i:oiviilsi§e.suit_.

It is their case that, they e_nti_p’roper parties i’

V” ‘..-

o th oroeeedings.

7. Considering the ‘AAri}ejiiitionshlp between

the respontients1″and_ the.”‘:petit:ione.rs.V.5and also their

i venvcnéffat.F-‘ei’upatt’i”o’n 10.3.1992 and-that Katha
has tween trensferred~,_:i”entries in the Pahani have been

mficie and .:that’:- the suit is for declaration and other

‘ incidentaei ,rellei*s,””a’iso keeping in mind, the allegation that

i Iceliusive suit, in my view, I.A.2 ought to have

teen t-!oti{.et,i by the triei court in order t- eeeeie the ceert

effeatueliy and compirteiv tr ao’;iuciic’t’ user: eii the

V.questions invoived in the suit. The revenue records of suit

properties show the names of the petitioners, which is not

in dispute. Since the suit is for comprehensive relief of
declaration and consequential reliefs, in View of the entries

34

I

in revenue records, the application of

meritorious. Since the petitioners are the ‘ ;

respondents and the suit schediiie

are claimed by the piaintir.iaebeidrigingiionnraena even

5 tuéfififif d”o’, in ‘achedu-in property,
under which ‘both the right, title
and intere«ist,__V ;;._is’ to permit the
patition.er§vnet5’1§~n1plee.deo “aetdefendants 2 to 4 in the suit.
The Ktriai’ itself, by acting with

‘ materlaniirregoianty illegality, has c_llsmi..se..r.i 1..A…2. In

. 1rpeitlee,%lthAe~«in1pugned order does not contain any rnateriai

~. A’ree«eoh5_’v_forV~.rii§aiiowino I.A.2. The trial Court has erred in

hoidlno. tliot the dispute is only between the plaintiff and

‘A the defendants. The claim made by the petitioners in I.A.2

‘ with regard to suit properties has not been noticed. In my

and circumstances of the case. Hence the 4_

is liable to be set aside and I.A.2: is requiafed’1Aig5 ig;ai’5iiowea.u it i

in the resuit, writ_;:~etition*«i_i$’– eiiowedi’:

order is set aside and I.A.2 ailo’wed’.c “Petitioners are
directed to be img§iendeti””‘:e*s”:..§iefe.ndante to 4 in
o.s.6/2oo4. pendingH_V_on._ fiiev.”tifv..’-the triei Court.

Petitioners/tiefenhdants =:2e’:to”” 4{§i’,’*:.”‘ehai§i fiie their written

tociafimei’nce;_Vthe§(:”heve copieeiof the pieint and written
statenzent, whVici*ifere~..§’rm~exed as Annexures A and B to

the writ i5’etition§’- ifinthe written statement, if any, being

A iiiéu the Viiioetitivoners, the trial Court shall frame

;e_dd!tioneti”‘ieet:es, if any. The trial Court is directed to

V.:Co’i«irt’ is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of

one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

\
L»-

No costs. ,

10

— __ ._ 1 :. *-.._;a.’

It is made ciaar that iii the conténtncrin-3Aurgeq’-15$,

both parties are left open to be decigjad sh ‘ti*i’é’_:_;.*u i’i::, by .

trial Court.

KW-