Smt Lakshmamma (Dead) v. Mr Seetharamaiah Since Dead by His Lrs., Ramakrishna (Dead)

e -e1e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:40911 WP(No.(3188(of(2023 CNR:(KAHC010074382023 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( RDDATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(VIJAYKUMAR(A.(PATIL( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(3188(OF(2023((GM-CPC) BETWEEN:( SMT,LAKSHMAMMA,(DEAD), SMT,,NARASAMMA,(DEAD),, K,VENKATARAMANAPPA,(DEAD), COMMON,LEGAL,HEIRS,TO,, DECEASED,PLAINTIFFS,1,TO,3,, SRI,CHANDRASHEKAR,(DEAD,BY,LRS),

1., SMT,SAVITHRAMMA,, AGED,57,YDARS,, W/O,LATE,CHANDRASHEKAR,, R/AT,NO.153,,JEEVANAHALLI,, COX,TOWN,,BENGALURU,-,560,005, Digitally signedtiby 2., SRI,RAVIKUMAR, SUNITHA0K0S AGED,34,YEARS,, Location: High0Courttiof S/O,LATE,CHANDRASHEKAR,, Karnataka R/AT,NO.153,,JEEVANAHALLI,, COX,TOWN,,BENGALURU,-,560,005,

3., SMT,RADHA, AGED,33,YEARS,, W/O,RAJAPPA,, D/O,LATE,CHANDRASHEKAR,, R/AT,NO.153,,JEEVANAHALLI,, COX,TOWN,,BENGALURU,-,560,005, e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:40911 WP(No.(3188(of(2023 CNR:(KAHC010074382023 SRI,V,BALAKRISHNA,(DEAD), SRI,V,MUNIRAJA,(DEAD), V,VIJAYAKUMAR,(DEAD), SRI,V,BABU,,4., AGED,ABOUT,26,YEARS,,

5., SRI,VENKATESH, AGED,ABOUT,42,YEARS,, R/AT,NO.153,, RESPONDENTS,NO.4,AND,5,ARE,, RESIDING,AT,NO.153,,, JEEVANAHALLI,,COX,TOWN,, BENGALURU,-,560,005, SMT,RATHNAMMA, DEAD,BY,LRS.,, SRI,A,M,SHIVARAJAKUMAR,,6., AGED,ABOUT,21,YEARS,,

7., SRI,M,BALAKRISHNA, AGED,ABOUT,20,YEARS,,

8., SRI,A,V,MUNISWAMY, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS,, HUSBAND,OF,RATHNAMMA,, RESPONDENTS,NO.6,TO,8,ARE,R/OF,, DAMMULA,GUDISALU,,DIGGURU,VILLAGE,, PERISANDRA,,CHIKKABALLAPURA,TALUK,-,562,104, TEMPORARY,ADDRESS,NO.153,, JEEVANAHALLI,,COX,TOWN,, BENGALURU-560005, e -e3e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:40911 WP(No.(3188(of(2023 CNR:(KAHC010074382023

9., SMT,SHOBHA, AGED,23,YEARS,, W/O,SRINIVAS,, R/OF,GUDIBANDA,, BAGEPALLI,, KOLAR,DISTRICT,-,561,209, TEMPORARY,ADDRESS,, NO.153,,JEEVANAHALLI,,COX,TOWN,, BENGALURU,-,560,005, …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,PUNDIKAI,ISHWARA,BHAT,,ADVOCATE), AND: MR.,SEETHARAMAIAH,, SINCE,DEAD,BY,HIS,LRS.,,, RAMAKRISHNA,(DEAD), MISS.,NEELA,,1., AGED,ABOUT,18,YEARS,,

2., MISS,DIVYA, AGED,ABOUT,15,YEARS,,

3., MISS,SUSHMA, AGED,ABOUT,10,YEARS,, NO.1,TO,3,ARE,THE,DAUGHTERS,OF,, RAMAKRISHNA,AND,GRAND,DAUGHTERS,OF, LATE,SEETATHARAMAIAH,, BEING,MINORS,REPRESENTED,BY,NATURAL, GUARDIAN,MOTHER,,SMT.,SHYLA, e -e4e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:40911 WP(No.(3188(of(2023 CNR:(KAHC010074382023 RESPONDENTS,NO.1,TO,3,ARE,, R/AT,PORTION,OF,NO.153,, JEEVANAHALLI,,COX,TOWN,, BENGALURU,-,560,005,

4., SMT,SHANTHA, AGED,ABOUT,38,YEARS,, W/O,LATE,KODANDA,, (DECEASED,S/O,LATE,SEETHARAMAIAH), SRI,DHARMENDRA,,5., AGED,ABOUT,23,YEARS,, S/O,LATE,KODANDA,, GRANDSON,OF,SEETHARAMAIAH,,

6., MRS,NAVANITHA,@,MONICA, D/O,LATE,KODANDA,AND,GRANDDAUGHTER,OF, SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED,21,YEARS,, SINCE,DEAD,BY,LR,-,R4,

7., MISS,DEVI, AGED,18,YEARS,, RESPONDENTS,NO.4,TO,7,ARE,DAUGHTERS,OF,, LATE,KODANDA,AND,GRAND,DAUGHTERS,OF, SEETHARAMAIAH,, RESPONDENTS,NO.4,TO,7,ARE,, RESIDING,AT,PORTION,OF,NO.153,, JEEVANAHALLI,,COX,TOWN,,, BENGALURU,-,560,005, SMT,SHARADA,, (DEAD,BY,LRS),, e -e5e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:40911 WP(No.(3188(of(2023 CNR:(KAHC010074382023

8., SRI,UMESH, MAJOR,, S/O,LATE,SHARADA,, R/AT,NAVATA,ROAD,TRANSPORT,, OPP.,LIC,OFFICE,,WARD,NO.15,, BHARATHI,NAGAR,, CHIKKABALLAPURA,-,562,101,

9., SMT,MADHAVI, MAJOR,, D/O,LATE,SHARADA,, R/AT,NAVATA,ROAD,TRANSPORT,, OPP,LIC,OFFICE,,WARD,NO.15,, BHARATHI,NAGAR,, CHIKKABALLAPURA,-,562,101,

¶10SMT,CHANDRA, AGED,39,YEARS,, D/O,LATE,SEETHARAMAIAH,, R/O,CHIKKABALLAPURA,,, NOW.,C/O,SRI,RAMAKRISHNA,, PORTION,OF,NO.153,,JEEVANAHALLI,, COX,TOWN,,, BENGALURU,-,560,005, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,MANOJ,K.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,, ,,,,,,SRI.,MAHABALESHWAR,G.C.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,-,R5,&,R7, ,,,,,,R8,AND,R9,SERVED, ,,,,,,VIDE,ORDER,DATED,29.01.2024,,, ,,,,,,NOTICE,TO,R10,IS,DISPENSED,IWTH), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,ORDERS,DATED,

25/08/2022, 03/09/2022, 14/09/2022 PASSED BY THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, IN OS NO. 15400/2000 IN SO FAR AS PERMITTING THE DEFENDANTS TO FILE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT AND THE ORDER DATED 30/01/2022 PASSED BY THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, REJECTING I A NO.1/2022 IN OS NO. 15400/2000, AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash orders dated 25.08.2022, 03.09.2022,

14.09.2022 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in OS.No.15400/2000 in so far as permitting the defendants to file Additional Written statement and the order dated

30.01.2022 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, rejecting I.A.No.1/2022 in O.S.No.15400/2000, as per Annexure-A. b) Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶2Heard Sri Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Manoj. K., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Mahabaleshwar G.C., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7.

¶3The petitioners herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.15400/2000 on the file of the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short) seeking the relief of declaration and other reliefs. The said suit came to be partly decreed, which was assailed by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants in RFA.No.775/2013 c/w RFA.No.481/2014. This Court, vide order dated

08.07.2022, allowed the appeals by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.15400/2000 by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

¶4After remand of the suit to the trial Court, the petitioners filed an application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendants on record, which came to be allowed and they were permitted to be brought on record. The legal representatives filed an additional written statement, which was taken on record by the trial Court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.1/2022 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), praying to reject the additional written statement dated 14.09.2022 filed by defendant Nos.1(b)(c)(d), 2(a)(b) and (d). The trial Court, under the impugned order dated 30.01.2023, rejected the said application.

¶5The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the legal representatives of the original defendants cannot take a new plea in the written statement, nor can they take a stand contrary to that of the original defendants. In order to substantiate the said contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of J.C. CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS VS. SHRI SRI KISHAN TANDON AND ANOTHER1, BAL KISHAN VS. OM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER2 and VIDYAWATI VS. MAN MOHAN AND OTHERS3.

¶6It is to be noticed that, after remand by this Court in the regular first appeals, the legal representatives of the deceased defendants were brought on record. As per Order XXII Rule 4(2) of the CPC, any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as a legal representative of the deceased defendant.

¶7The aforesaid provision of law makes it clear that a legal representative of a party can make an appropriate defence. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the legal representatives are 1 AIR 1972 SC 2526 2 AIR 1986 SC 1952 3 AIR 1995 SC 1653

raising a new defence or taking any contrary stand to the stand taken by the original defendant.

¶8In my considered view, the said issue is required to be gone into by the trial Court, when the suit is heard and decided on merits. It is open to the plaintiffs to point out that, if any new facts or new defence are raised by the legal representatives or if they have raised the contrary defence than the original defendants.

¶9The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra pertains to tenancy disputes, wherein it is held that the legal heirs can put forth their defence appropriate to their representative character and not one which was personal to the deceased.

¶10Keeping in mind the enunciation of law in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that if the legal representatives of the defendants have raised any new plea or taken a contrary stand to that of the defendant, it is always open for the plaintiffs to

point out the same before the trial Court at the time of deciding the suit.

¶11With the aforesaid observations, I am of the considered view that the legal representatives of the defendants are entitled to file an additional written statement, and the trial Court has fully justified in rejecting the application. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶12Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶13In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending applications, if any, stand closed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13