Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 33035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 328 OF 2024 (IO)
BETWEEN:
M/S CREATION SHELTERS WHITEFIELD LLP, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.99/B, KORAMANGALA 5TH BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560095 REP. BY ITS PARTNER MUSANURU KISHORE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINATH P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ROSY MARY @ ROSY LENA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS Digitally signed by KIRAN 2. SMT. VICTOR HARRI KUMAR R Location: S/O LATE MARIYAPPA HIGH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS COURT OF KARNATAKA
3. KUM. VICTORIA MARY D/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 108, SUBHAS NAGAR, NEAR THAMBUCHETTYPALYA, BANGALORE – 560049
4. SMT. A REETHAMMA D/O LATE C ANTHONCHARI AND LATE SAGAYA MARY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
5. SMT A JOSEPH BALARAJU D/O LATE C ANTHONCHARI AND LATE SAGAYA MARY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
6. SMT JYOTHI D/O A JOSEPH BALARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
7. KUM NIRMALA DEVI D/O A JOSEPH BALARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
8. KUM RAKSHITHA DEVI D/O A JOSEPH BALARAJU AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS 9. SRI A CHINNAPPA D/O LATE C ANTHONCHARI AND LATE SAGAYA MARY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
10. SMT UMADEVI D/O A CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
11. MASTER.JEEVAN SOLOMAN S/O A CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI A CHINNAPPA
12. MASTER ANIL JAROMON S/O A CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI A CHINNAPPA RESPONDENTS 4 TO 12 ARE ALL RESIDING AT BEVINAMARA COLONY, KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE – 560067 13. SMT VANI ARJUN S/O ARJUN BONSLE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.679/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JUSTICE BHIMAIAH LAYOUT, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE – 560036.
14. SMT. MALA SURESH, W/O S SURESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.205 ”VRINDAVANA”, BYAPPANAHALLI VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560049
15. SRI AKRAM PASHA S/O AZEEZ BAIG AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.92, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560036
16. SRI ANTHARAJU S/O ANTHONYACHARI C/O NARYANA REDDY GUDAPALI VILLAGE AND POST, BYRAPURA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563132
17. SRI AROGYA SWAMY S/O LATE BOJAPPA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
18. SMT ARULAMMA D/O AROGYA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 77 YEAR S RESPONDENTS 17 AND 18 ARE RESIDING AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE – 560067
19. SRI VICTORIA ANGELINE W/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
20. SRI. ROOPA ANTHU MARY D/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 21. SRI SUNIL JOSEPH S/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
22. SMT ASHA D/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
23. SRI SUMAN ZAVIER S/O LATE JNANA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.19 TO 23 ARE RESIDING AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE (E) TALUK BANGALORE - 560067
24. SRI ANTHONY MARY W/O LATE RAJAPPA @ RAJAPPACHARI, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, 25. SRI IMMANUEL S/O LATE RAJAPPA @ RAJAPPACHARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
26. SRI FRANCIS S/O LATE RAJAPPA @ RAJAPPACHARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
27. SRI SANTHOSH PAUL S/O LATE RAJAPPA @ RAJAPPACHARI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 28. SRI ANTHONY RAJ S/O LATE RAJAPPA @ RAJAPPACHARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 29. SRI VINAY KUMAR S/O LATE RAJAPPA @ RAJAPPACHARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 24 TO 29 ARE RESIDING AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560067
30. DR. SANJAY G SHIRBUR S/O DR. G N SHIRBUR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 633/A, 17TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE – 560038 31. SRI P SUBRAMANI S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 317, “SAI SANNIDHI NILAYA”
BELTHUR, 2ND MAIN, KADUGODI POST, BANGALORE – 560067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEVARAJ N., ADVOCATE C/R-31)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5.04.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN OS NO.173/2024 ON THE FILE OF IV ASCJ, BRD, BENGALURU., REJECTING THE IA NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a)
AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. P.Subramani—the 31st respondent herein instituted a suit seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Declare that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of Residential converted A- Schedule Property bearing Sy.No.177/3 measuring 27 guntas of land, out of 35 guntas of land, situated at Kannamangala Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore Rural District;
b) Declare that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of Residential converted B- Schedule Property bearing Sy.No.177/4 measuring 35 guntas of land, situated at Kannamangala Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore Rural District;
c) Declare that the Sale Deeds dated
15.06.2009 executed by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of Defendants 13 to 16 and Sale Deed dated 13.09.2011 executed by Defendants 1 to 12 in favour of Defendant No.30 and Sale Deed dated 14.05.2020 executed by the Defendant No.30 in favour of Defendant No.31 in respect of A - Schedule Property is sham, collusive, illegal and that the same is liable to be declared as null and void and the same is liable to be Cancelled by this Hon'ble Court;
d) Declare that the Sale Deed dated
04.09.2012, 04.09.2012, 04.09.2012 executed by Defendants 17 to 29 in favour of Defendant No.30 and Sale Deed dated 14.05.2020 executed by the Defendant No.30 in favour of Defendant No.31 in respect of B-Schedule Property is sham, collusive, illegal and that the same is liable to be declared as null and void and the same is liable to be Cancelled by this Hon'ble Court;
e) Issue direction to the office of Sub-
Registrar Shivajinagar for cancelling the sale deed dated 15.06.2009, 13.09.2011, and 14.05.2020 in respect of A -Schedule Property and also to cancel the sale deed dated 04.09.2012, 04.09.2012, 04.09.2012 and 14.05.2020 in respect of B-Schedule Property;
f) For a Permanent Injunction against the Defendants, their agent/s, henchmen/s or anybody restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint Schedule Properties of the Plaintiff;
g) For restraining the Defendants, their agent/s, henchmen/s or anybody from Alienating the plaint Schedule Properties of the Plaintiff; ”
2. It was his case that in respect of the lands bearing survey Nos.177/3 and 177/4, the owners of the lands had executed a registered General Power of Attorney (“GPA”) in favour of one Niranjan Gupta on 30.11.1995 and on 13.12.1995, the said GPA holder—Niranjan Gupta, on the strength of the GPA, had executed a sale deed in favour of M/s.Navaras Real Estate Holdings, which was also represented by its partner—Niranjan Gupta (the GPA holder) under two sale deeds dated 13.04.2005. He stated that M/s.Navaras Real Estate Holdings sold said properties in favour of P.Subramani under two sale deeds dated 21.11.2023 and had thus become the owner.
3. It was his case that notwithstanding the fact that the erstwhile owner had executed a registered GPA in favour of Niranjan Gupta, the legal heirs of the erstwhile owners had proceeded to execute a sale deed in favour of the 30th defendant under sale deeds dated 13.09.2011 and three sale deeds dated 04.09.2012, and the 30th defendant, in turn, had executed two sale deeds in favour of the 31st defendant (the revision petitioner) under two sale deeds dated 14.05.2020 and these sale deeds were of no consequence in view of the conveyance of title in favour of M/s.Navaras Real Estate Holdings.
4. In the said suit, an application was filed by the revision petitioner i.e., the 31st defendant seeking to reject the plaint, by contending that Niranjan Gupta having obtained the GPA from the erstwhile owners, could not have executed the sale deeds in favour of M/s.Navaras Real Estate Holdings in which he was a partner, and the sale deeds had been obtained subsequent to the death of the principal which resulted in the determination of the agency and, therefore, there was no conveyance of title, as a result of which there was no cause of action for filing of the suit.
5. The Trial Court has,
