SMT.O.LEELAVATHI vs SRI.M.NEELAKANTA NAIDU - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6470

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

O.S.No.2046/1997, O.S.2048/1997 O.S.No.2047/1997 and

O.S.No.2045/1997 respectively on the file of the XIV Addl.City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

2. The appellants herein who were the plaintiffs in all

the suits are the same, while the respondent No.1 – defendant

No.1 and respondents 3 to 6 – defendants 3 to 6 in all the four

suits are the same. However, respondent No.2 – defendant

O.S.No.2045/1997, T.N.Venkatesh in O.S.No.2046/1997,

E.Govinda Naidu in O.S.2047/1997 and T.Krishnam Naidu in

O.S.No.2048/1997.

3. The subject matter of all the suits is a land bearing

old Sy.No.4, Re-Sy.No.4/2 of Jarakabande kaval, Yelahanka

Hobli, Bangalore north taluk, Bangalore, measuring 4 acres 14

guntas and 44 sq.yards corresponding to BDA site Nos.22/1,

22/2, 22/3 and 22/4 described as the plaint ‘A’ schedule

property. A portion of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was

described as the plaint ‘B’ schedule property.

4. In the said suits, the appellants – plaintiffs sought for

cancellation of the sale deed dated 13.09.1993 executed by

the 1^st defendant in favour of 2^nd defendant and also for

cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.09.1994 executed by

2^nd defendant in favour of defendants 3 to 5 and for a direction

to the defendants 1 to 5 to hand over possession of the ‘B’

schedule property to the plaintiffs and for mesne profits and

other reliefs.

5. The said suits were contested by the defendants and

the trial court framed 12 issues including issues 7 to 9, which

are as under:-

7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

8. Whether the valuation of the ‘B’ schedule

property for the reliefs sought and the court fee paid are

not sufficient ?

9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the

6. The trial court treated the said issues 7 to 9 as

preliminary issues and answered issue Nos. 7 and 9 against

the appellants – plaintiffs and came to the conclusion that the

suit was not maintainable and proceeded to dismiss the suits

vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.2001.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants – plaintiffs

preferred four appeals in RFA Nos.634-637/2001 before this

Court. By final judgment dated 28.08.2006, this Court allowed

the appeals and set aside the judgment and decrees of the

trial court and remitted the matter back to the trial court to

frame issues regarding maintainability of the suits and treat

the same as preliminary issues and reconsider the matter

afresh and decide whether the suits were maintainable or not

after providing opportunity to all parties.

8. The said judgment and decree passed by this Court

in the aforesaid RFA Nos. 634-637/2007 was challenged by

the defendants in SLP (civil) No.6109/2007 which came to be

dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 04.09.2009.

9. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment dated

28.08.2006 passed by this Court will indicate that the facts

and issues obtaining in the instant cases have been succinctly

captured by this Court by holding as under:-

“ These four appeals are arising out of a

common orders passed on issue Nos.7 to 9 and on

maintainability of the suit. The appellants in these

appeals were plaintiff in O.S Nos. 2045/97. Since

the averments in the plaints in the four suits and the

contentions in the written statements are similar,

these appeals are heard together by consent of the

learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

2. Four suits were filed by the plaintiffs

against different defendants and out of them

defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 re common in all suits

and only the defendant No. 2 in the sits are different.

They are, Doraiswamy Naidu in O.S. No. 2045/97,

T.N. Venkatesh in O.S. No. 2047/97 and T.

Krishnam Naidu in 2048/97.

3. Four suits were filed by the plaintiff for the

following reliefs:

To cancel the sale deed dt. 13.9.1993

executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd

defendant in all the suits and to cancel the sale

deed dated 15.