Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B. Veerappa, J.
Venugopal @ Venugopal Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Anantha @ R Anantharama Reddy – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 47557 of 2017, 47558 of 2017
Decided On : 08-03-2019
D.R. Ravishankar, Adv., Arun A Gadag, Adv., K. Shridhara K, Adv.
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court must provide reasoned decisions when allowing applications for legal representation and amendment of pleadings, and must consider the entitlement of claimed legal representatives to represent the estate of the deceased.
Headnote:
Order XXII Rule 3 - Amendment of Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of properties. During the suit, the first plaintiff died, and the applicants filed an application to come on record as legal representatives. They later filed an application for amendment of the pleadings to include details of a registered Will and additional prayers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the orders allowing the applications were not reasoned and lacked consideration. It held that the mere filing of an application to bring legal representatives on record does not amount to bringing them on record, and the Court must consider and decide whether the persons claiming to be legal representatives should be brought on record.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the orders allowing the applications for legal representation and amendment of pleadings, and the lack of reasoned decisions by the Trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the Trial Court must provide reasoned decisions when allowing applications for legal representation and amendment of pleadings. It also highlighted the duty of the Court to consider whether the claimed legal representatives are entitled to represent the estate of the deceased.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to consider the applications along with the main suit and to decide the suit expeditiously within a specified time frame.
B. Veerappa, J.
The defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed the present writ petitions against the Order dated 11.11.2015 allowing the application filed by the impleading applicants under Order XXII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure and Order dated 11.09.2017 allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment, made in O.S.No.6705/2014 on the file of the XXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-23).
2. The original plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners by title and possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties, for cancellation of gift deeds, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating/encumbering the suit schedule properties in favour of third parties, etc., as set out in detail in the prayer to the suit, raising various contentions.
3. The defendants filed written statement, denied the plaint averments and contended that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties based on the registered gift deeds said to have been executed by the plaintiffs. During pendency of the suit, first plaintiff died on 22.04.2015. Therefore, the applicants filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure to come on record as plaintiff Nos.1(a) to 1(c) on the ground that they are the legatees under the registered Will dated 23.10.2014 and also they are the legal representatives of the first plaintiff. The said application was not opposed by any of the parties, including defendant Nos.2 and 3.
4. The Trial Court, by the order dated 11.11.2015, allowed the application. In view of the allowing the application to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff, they filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the pleadings and to add an additional prayer to the effect that plaintiff No.1(a) is the daughter and first defendant is the son of deceased plaintiff. Plaintiff Nos.1(b) to (d) are the children of plaintiff No.1(a) and grand children of deceased first plaintiff; plaintiff during her life time had executed a Will dated 23.10.2014; the plaintiff had bequeathed her 1/12th share in the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 4830/2000 and also bequeathed suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties shown as item No.6 in the registered Will in favour of plaintiff Nos.1(a) to (d) etc., and to add a prayer for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as per the terms of the registered Will dated 23.10.2014 and for declaration that the sale agreement dated 26.03.2014 said to have been executed by the second defendant in favour of fifth defendant is a void document and the same is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
5. The said application was opposed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and contended that the application is frivolous application filed only to harass the defendants and the proposed amendment sought will putforth entirely a new case. The same is not permissible and liable to be rejected and contended that the Will is fabricated by plaintiffs only with an intention to deprive the legitimate rights of the defendants over suit schedule properties. The application filed after commencement of the Trial at a belated stage is not maintainable. The Trial Court considering the application and objections, by the impugned Order dated 11.09.2017 allowed the application for amendment with non-reasoned order. Hence, these writ petitions are filed.
6. Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3, contended that the impugned Order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He further contended th
