AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 26.8.2011, passed on I.A. No. 10 and I.A. No. 11 in O.S. No. 5947/1997.
The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property measuring 34 guntas in Sy. No. 51/3 of Kodigehalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk.
It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, respondents/defendant 1 to 3 have gifted the suit schedule property to the proposed defendants 4 and 5. In fact, the petitioner/plaintiff had purchased the said property by a registered sale deed dated 17.2.1997, Therefore, two applications were filed under Order V Rule 17 CPC and under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking amendment of the prayers in the suit by seeking a declaration with regard to nudity of the gift: deeds and also to Implead donees under the said instruments. The said applications were heard together and have been dismissed by order dated 26.8.2011, which order is impugned in this writ petition.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property, as the same having been purchased from the defendants/respondents on 17.2.1997, As the respondents/defendants have interfered with the suit schedule property, the suit for permanent injunction was filed against the defendants. During the said proceedings, the defendants 2 and 3 have alienated the said property by means of two gift deeds dated 19.3.2007 and 17.4.2007 in favour of the proposed defendants, Under the circumstances, an application was filed seeking amendment of the prayers as the said gift deeds are null and void and another application was filed to implead the donees under the gift deed. He further submitted that the said applications have been erroneously dismissed by the Trial Court, which order calls for intervention in this writ petition.
Having heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and there is threat to his possession from the defendants, It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendancy of the said suit for permanent injunction, the suit schedule property which according to the petitioner belongs to him has been allensted by the defendants in favour of two persons. It is under those circumstances, the said two applications have bean filed. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the suit filed by the petitioner is only for permanent injunction against the defendants and the plaintiff apprehending threat from the defendants with regard to his possession of the suit schedule property. If the salt schedule property which is stated to belong to the petitioner has been gifted by the respondents/defendants to other person, then the same would give raise to separate cause of action. It is significant to note that it is not the proposed defendants who are threatening the petitioner''s possession, but it is the defendants 1 to 3 who are respondents herein against whom the suit has been filed. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the said applications or otherwise it would give raise to mis-joinder of causes of action. Therefore, the order impugned would not call for interference. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a separate suit against the present defendants as well as the proposed defendants, if so advised with regard to the validity of the gift deed.
With the above liberty, these petitions are dismissed.