- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.61979 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI CHETAN P TAYAL S/O LATE NANDKISHORE TAYAL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT 3RD FLOOR, GOLD TOWERS, NO.50, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.N.MAHESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT NARASAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 1(a) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O H.C. DASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT HOSAHUNDAVADI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438. 1(b) SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O L GOWDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT KERETHONNURU VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 437. ® - 2 - 1(c) SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT KERETHONNURU VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434. 1(d) SRI H C KRISHNA S/O LATE CHANNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT GOKULAM MYSURU-570001. 1(e) SRI RAME GOWDA S/O LATE CHANNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT VIJAYANAGAR MYSURU-570001. 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e) ARE ALSO AT HOSAHUNDAVADI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438. 2. SRI SHIVE GOWDA S/O LATE CHANNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KRISHNARAJA SAGARA VILLAGE, BELGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438. …RESPONDENTS (R1(a), R1(b) – ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DT:08.07.2025 NOTICE TO R1 (c TO e) AND r2 is H/S) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER DTD 19.11.2015 AND ORDER DTD 14.7.2016 VIDE - 3 - ANNEXURE-F IN OS NO.96/2015 PENDING OF THE FILE OF THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE[SR DN] AT SRIRANGAPATNA AND CONSEQUENTLY DECLARE THAT OS NO.96/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL CIVIL JUDGE [SR DN] AT SRIRANGAPATNA IS ABATED AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER The present writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 19.11.2015 and order dated 14.07.2016 vide Annexure-F in O.S.No.96/2015 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Srirangapatana (‘the trial Court’ for short) and declare that O.S.No.96/2015 pending on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Srirangapatana is abated. 2. The petitioner herein is arraigned as defendant No.2 in O.S. No.96/2015 (Old No.O.S.No.19/2010) on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatana. The respondent No.2 herein is defendant - 4 - No.1 before the trial Court and is the son of the deceased plaintiff, who executed a registered sale deed dated 26.06.2006 in favour of the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that:- The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff, who is now deceased, and is presently represented by her legal representatives impleaded under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC as respondents No.1(a) to 1(e). The suit was initially instituted as O.S.No.19/2010 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatana, but was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.96/2015 before the jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge. The relief sought therein was declaration and injunction on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 17.05.1968 in the name of the plaintiff, alleged to be her self-acquired property. It was pleaded that respondent No.2 fraudulently procured mutation entry vide MR No.9/1999-2000 in his favour and, on that basis, the - 5 - impugned sale deed dated 26.06.2006, was executed in favour of the petitioner without her knowledge. It was averred that only one month prior to the filing of the suit she became aware of such sale when defendants attempted to dispossess her. The respondent No.2 filed written statement admitting that the schedule property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 17.05.1968 but contending that in an oral partition it fell to his share. It was further pleaded that the mutation entry MR No.9/1999-2000 was effected with the plaintiff’s consent and that the subsequent sale deed dated 26.06.2006 was executed in favour of the petitioner for valid consideration. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was sought. The plaint filed before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) was directed to be returned by order dated 29.10.2015, with a direction to present it before the competent Court on or before 01.12.2015. The plaintiff expired on 20.08.2015, prior to the return of plaint. However, this fact was not brought to the - 6 - notice of the trial Court. The plaint and documents were received by her counsel on 07.11.2015 and re-presented before the Senior Civil Judge, Srirangapatana, in her name, along with an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC. The matter was renumbered as O.S.No.96/2015. The trial Court, by orders dated 19.11.2015 and 14.07.2016, issued suit summons and notices, including through paper publication. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that under Order III Rule 4(2) CPC, a vakalathnama shall remain in force until determined by leave of Court, or until the client or pleader dies, or until proceedings are concluded. In the present case, upon the death of the plaintiff on 20.08.2015, the vakalathnama automatically stood terminated in law, and the counsel had no authority to act further without leave of the Court. The proper course of action was to bring the legal representatives on record and file a fresh vakalathnama on their behalf before seeking return or re- presentation of the plaint. - 7 - 5. It is a also contended that upon the death of a party, the authority of the counsel ceases, and nothing further can be done in the proceedings without appropriate substitution of LRs. In the instant matter, instead of informing the Court about the death of the plaintiff and moving for impleadment of her LRs, the plaint was improperly withdrawn and re-presented in the name of the deceased. The trial Court, proceeding on such presentation, erred in issuing summons and notices. The impugned orders are fundamentally flawed in law. 6. Aggrieved by continuance of proceedings on the basis of a plaint filed by a deceased person, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. On hearing the submissions of the counsel for petitioner, on perusal of the material on record and the impugned orders dated 19.11.2015 and 14.07.2016 vide - 8 - Annexure-F in O.S.No.96/2015 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Srirangapatana, this Court intends to interfere in the impugned Order and the impugned Order is hereby set aside and further it is observed that it is a suit for declaration of the title that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and restraining the defendants. It is observed that, the plaintiff filed the suit before the additional civil judge Junior division and JMFC at Srirangapatna in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction the matter and the case is transferred to Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dv.) at Srirangapatna to file the same before the proper Court. As disputed by the petitioner that the suit was returned with an objection on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaintiff was no more and died on 28.08.2015. While counsel on record complied the objection raised and filed the same before the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC on 07.11.2015. It appears that after the death of the plaintiff only the counsel presented the suit without bringing the LRs on record which is not proper in the eye of law and at the - 9 - same time the petitioner also without raising the same issues before the trial Court filing this writ petition is also not maintainable. However it is directed for the petitioner to raise this issue before the trial court and further directed the trial court by affording opportunity to the parties in the suit and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: a. The petitioner is permitted to raise and file his objections. b. On receipt of the objections, the trial court is directed to dispose the objections in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the objections. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV