AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—Petitioner herein, who was the plaintiff in OS No. 203 of 2008, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr Dn) and JMFC, Sidlaghatta, is questioning the order dated 2-6-2012, passed on IA-IV filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.
The petitioner filed the suit against Sathyanarayana Reddy for specific performance of the contract in respect of Sy No. 67/2 measuring 28 guntas; Sy No. 67/4 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas; Sy No. 63/1A measuring 1 acre 11 guntas; Sy No. 63/1B measuring 1 acre 11 guntas; and Sy No. 63/4 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas, in all measuring 6 acres 22 guntas, situated at Tadur village, Jagamanakote hobli, Sidlaghatta taluk in Chikkaballapur district. In the suit, the second respondent M/s. Universal Flora Limited, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, filed an application to come on record, stating that the plaintiff has instituted the suit against Sathyanarayana Reddy in respect of the properties standing in the name of the company and therefore the company is entitled to come on record as second defendant in the suit to contest the claim of the plaintiff, as the rights of the company is at stake. The trial court allowed the said application permitting M/s. Universal Flora Limited to come on record as second defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Sri C M Nagabhushana, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the petitioner is not claiming any right over the properties standing in the name of M/s. Universal Flora Limited and is seeking right only against defendant Sathyanarayana Reddy. Therefore, he submits that even if the petitioner-plaintiff obtains a decree against the defendant Sathyanaryana Reddy, it will not have any effect on the properties standing in the name of M/s. Universal Flora Limited. He further submits that the petitioner-plaintiff is not going to claim any right over the properties standing in the name of M/s. Universal Flora Limited and therefore contends that the second respondent - M/s. Universal Flora Limited - is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in the background of the submission by Sri C M Nagabhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC by M/s. Universal Flora Limited, more particularly, para-2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, sworn to by Arvind Gowda, director and authorized signatory of M/s. Universal Flora Limited, which discloses that all these properties are standing in the name of M/s. Universal Flora Limited acquired under registered sale deeds of different dates, this court is of the opinion that if the petitioner-plaintiff is claiming right in respect of the properties standing in the name of M/s. Universal Flora Limited, the company has to be considered as a proper and necessary party to the suit. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff is not in respect of the properties standing in the name of M/s. Universal Flora Limited, the apprehension of the company that its rights would be affected in respect of the properties standing in its name cannot be accepted.
Therefore, this petition is allowed, setting aside the order passed by the trial court. Consequently, IA-IV filed by M/s. Universal Flora Limited to come on record as second defendant is hereby rejected, making it clear that even if the petitioner-plaintiff obtains a decree against defendant Sathyanarayana Reddy, the same shall not affect the rights of M/s. Universal Flora Limited in respect of the properties obtained by it under various registered sale deeds, as detailed in para-2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application in IA-IV viz., sale deed dated 23-1-1998 executed by one Muniyappa and others in favour of M/s. Universal Flora Limited in respect of Sy No. 63/4, measuring 39 guntas; sale deed dated 25-3-1998 executed by Smt. Lakshmamma and others in favour of M/s. Universal Flora Limited in respect of Sy No. 63/4 measuring 39 guntas; sale deed dated 3-2-1998 executed by Muniyappa and others in favour of M/s. Universal Flora Limited in respect of Sy No. 67/2, measuring 28 guntas; sale deed dated 31-1-1998 executed by Chikka Govindappa and others in favour of M/s. Universal Flora Limited in respect of Sy No. 67/4, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas; and sale deed dated 28-1-1998 executed by Smt. Lakshmi and others in favour of M/s. Universal Flora Limited in respect of Sy No. 63/1A and 63/1B, totally measuring 2 acres 22 guntas, all are situated at Tadur village, Jagamanakote hobli, Sidlaghatta taluk in Chikkaballapur district. Protecting the rights of second respondent M/s. Universal Flora Limited in respect of the aforesaid properties, this writ petition is allowed.