S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

( 1 ) SINCE common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) IN these writ petitions, petitioner has challenged the interim order dated 2-4-2007 passed in O. S. Nos. 157, 158, 159, 160, 162 and 163/2006 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn. ). , Bellary.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the second defendant in the aforesaid suits. First respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suits for a declaration that it is the landlord of the suit schedule premises and to pass a decree of eviction against the first defendant from the schedule premisses. Alternatively, the plaintiff has sought for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant, his men, agents, servants, assignees, etc. , to continuously pay the monthly rents to the plaintiff from the date of suits till he vacates the premises in question.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the property is owned by Joint hindu Family firm of Jantakal Gadilingappa and Brothers, represented by its kartha-J. Rajashekar. The second defendant has entered appearance and filed his written statement. According to him, his father J. Rachappa was managing the affairs of the Joint Hindu Family and after his death, he has been managing and looking after the welfare of the joint family and its members and joint family properties. It is further contended that the shopping complex in question was constructed by him and that he is entitled for the rents. On the basis of the pleadings, the Court below has framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff joint family is the landlord of defendant no. 1 and J. Rajashekar is its kartha? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit property by evicting defendant No. 1? or in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled for rents from the date of suit till the vacation of suit property? 3. Whether the suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is correct? 4. Whether the defendant No. 2 proves that, the suit is bad for non-joinder of all the joint family members? 5. Whether the termination of tenancy is proper? 6. What decree or order?"

( 5 ) THE Court below has treated issue Nos. 3 and 4 as preliminary issues and passed common order on the said issues. There is no challenge to the order passed by the trial Court on issue No. 3. On issue No. 4, the court below has held that suit is not bad for non-joinder of all the joint family members. Incidentally, it has answered a part of issue No. l as to the karthaship of the joint Hindu family which was necessary to decide issue No. 4. The challenge in this writ petition is with regard to the order of the trial Court holding that J. Rajashekar as the kartha of Joint Hindu family.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below was not justified in holding that J. Rajashekar was the kartha of the family. It is contended that earlier his father J. Rachappa was managing the affairs of the family and after his death, petitioner is managing the affairs of the family. During the pendency of the proceedings, five of the members of the joint family have filed an affidavit stating that the second defendant (J. Veerabhadrappa) is managing the family properties. The Court below is not justified in treating issue No. 4 as a preliminary issue as it involves disputed question of law and fact and the same has to be tried along with the other issues. Alternatively, it is contended that the Court below has decided a portion of issue No. 1, which was not treated as a preliminary issue. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Shree Ram Bohra and Others, AIR 1965 SC 1531 in support of his contention.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that Sri Rachappa was the senior member

Click Here to Read the rest of this document