SHIVANGOUDA LINGANGOUDA Vs. GANGAWWA BASAPPA
LAWS(KAR)-1966-4-10
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on April 01,1966

SHIVANGOUDA LINGANGOUDA Appellant
VERSUS
GANGAWWA BASAPPA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AHMAD SAHIB V. MAGNESITE SYNDICATE LTD. [REFERRED TO]
TULJARAM HARKISONDAS V. HARKISAN JAGJIVAN [REFERRED TO]
BIHARILAL V. WASUNDARABAI [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA V. RAMESHWAR [REFERRED TO]
KANAKARATHANAMMAL VS. V S LOGANATHA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM KALI VS. PAHILWAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAMA MOTIBHAI VS. DALWADI TUPOO RAMA [REFERRED TO]
CURRIMBHOY AND CO LTD VS. LACREET [REFERRED TO]
NABA KUMAR HAZRA VS. RADHESHYAM MAHISH [REFERRED TO]
SAMBHU GOSAIN VS. PIYARI MIAN [REFERRED TO]
ADHILAKSHMI AMMAL VS. TNALLASIVAN PILLAI (DIED) [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

ASWINI KUMAR ROY VS. KSHITISH CHANDRA SEN GUPTA [LAWS(CAL)-1970-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
AMBAJI VS. SHORANAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-1974-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
BHEEMANAGOWDA VS. SYED MURTUZAKHADRI SUJJADANASHEEN [LAWS(KAR)-1995-4-21] [FOLLOWED ON]
SANDUR NOORSAB VS. H ABDUL BASITH SAB [LAWS(KAR)-1995-7-62] [DISTINGUSHED ,DIST. ;]
HEMAREDDI VS. RAMACHANDRA YALLAPPA HOSMANI YALLAPA S/O TAMMANNA HOSMANI AND [LAWS(KAR)-2006-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
P HARIDOSS VS. N SUBBAYYA PILLAI [LAWS(MAD)-1998-2-163] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN AMRITLAL VS. MANHARLAL JIVANLAL PARIKH [LAWS(GJH)-1983-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJABIBI VS. S AMEERALI [LAWS(KAR)-1974-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
B VALSALA VS. SUNDARAM NADAR BHASKARAN [LAWS(KER)-1993-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA PRASAD VS. SUKHDIBYA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-1971-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAJABIBI AND OTHERS VS. S. AMEERALI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(KAR)-1974-1-22] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a defendant's appeal. The only point urged in this appeal is that the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The question of non-joinder was raised in the trial Court and an issue was framed in that connection. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit being one for ejectment, the sisters of the plaintiff-respondent are not necessary parties to the suit. It accordingly repelled the contention of the defendant that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The first appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court on this point.
(2.)Mr. B. V. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanakarathanammal v. V. S. Loganath Mudaliar, AIR1965 SC 271 , [1964 ]6 SCR1 , the view taken by the Courts below must be held to be an erroneous one and further as the plaintiff had persisted in prosecuting the suit without impleading the necessary parties, the suit ought to be dismissed. The question for consideration is whether the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanakarathanammal's case, AIR1965 SC 271 , [1964 ]6 SCR1 , governs the facts of the present case.
(3.)The suit property originally belonged to one Basavva who died on 28-8-1960 leaving behind her the plaintiff and her two sisters Mallavva and Shivalingawwa. The defendant took possession of those properties asserting that he had been adopted by Basavva to her husband. The adoption pleaded was held to be invalid in an earlier suit In the present suit, the defendant asserted that he was entitled to hold the property in view of a Will said to have been executed by Basavva bequeathing the suit properties to him. The Will in question has not been marked as Exhibit in the case nor has it been proved. The Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the defendant is a trespasser in the suit property. It may be noted that the present suit is one for ejectment of the defendant from the suit properly.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.