Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 86367 (KAR)

THE COMMISSIONER v. THE COMMISSIONER

RSA/463/2014 · 2025-09-15

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36911 RSA No. 463 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, P.B. NO.27, SAYYAJI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 001. …APPELLANT (BY MS. ANUSHA NANDISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GAURAV G.K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER MUDA MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE - 570 001. 2. SMT. H.S. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O H.G. CHINNSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1336/1, 4TH CROSS, KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM, MYSORE - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MEGHA SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE FOR E2) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36911 RSA No. 463 of 2014 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD 19.07.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.577/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 23.12.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.537/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AT MYSORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is against a divergent finding in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. 2. The plaintiff sought declaration of title over the property. Two defendants in the suit are; the Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority and the Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation. 3. Defendant No.2 contested the suit and raised the contention that the suit is not maintainable for not - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36911 RSA No. 463 of 2014 impleading the State as a party. It is the stand of the defendant No.2- Municipal Corporation that the State is running a hospital in the suit property and the property belongs to the State. 4. The trial Court accepted the plea and dismissed the suit on the premise that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree dismissing the suit, the plaintiff filed appeal before First Appellate Court in R.A.No.577/2010 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mysore. First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and consequently decreed the suit and directed demolition of the constructions made in the suit property and also directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within nine months. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36911 RSA No. 463 of 2014 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, defendant No.2 is before this Court. 7. This appeal was admitted on 22.02.2019, to answer the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of actual facts by the plaintiff? (ii) Whether the suit in O.S.No.537/2002 is liable to be remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to dispose of the same along with O.S.No.485/2013 filed by the Government of Karnataka and others as per law?" 8. Learned Counsel for defendant No.2/appellant would place reliance on the judgment of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, in O.S.No.485/2013, which is rendered on 12.04.2023. The said suit is in respect of very same property and said suit is filed by the State against the plaintiff and also the defendants of the present suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36911 RSA No. 463 of 2014 9. In the said suit in O.S. No.485/2013, the State made a claim that the decree passed in O.S No.537/2002 and R.A No.577/2010 referred to above are not binding on the plaintiff/State. 10. Defendant No.1 in the said suit, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No.537/2002 contested the suit and made a claim that she is the owner of the property pursuant to the judgment and decree in O.S No.537/2002 and R.A No.577/2010. 11. The trial Court decreed the suit in O.S. No.577/2010 in part, holding that the State cannot claim ownership as long as the decree in R.A No.577/2010 is set aside. The defendant No.1 in the said suit namely, the plaintiff in O.S.No.537/2002 is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff/State from the suit property without due process of law. 12. Referring to the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the State is found to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36911 RSA No. 463 of 2014 be in possession of the property and the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court without impleading the State as a party to the proceedings are not sustainable and have to be set aside. 13. It is the submission that the trial court rightly dismissed the suit for want of non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the Appellate Court has not noticed the fact that the State is in possession of the property and the State is a necessary party to the said suit. 14. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has accepted the finding that the State is in possession of the property as the judgment and decree in O.S No.485/2013 are not questioned. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent No.2 would submit that the State has no right over the property and as there was interference by the defendants, the plaintiff has only added two defendants namely, the Commissioner, Mysore Urban - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36911 RSA No. 463 of 2014 Development Authority and the Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation and First Appellate Court is justified in granting a decree for declaration of title and mandatory injunction. 16. This court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 17. The judgment and decree dated 12.04.2023 in O.S No.485/2013, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru, are not disputed. On going through the said judgment and decree, it is noticed that the trial Court has held that the plaintiff in the said suit, namely, the State is in possession of the suit property. 18. It is also noticed that the trial Court has not adjudicated the issue relating to the State's claim of ownership over the property on the premise that the judgment in R.A No.577/2010 is not yet set-aside and same is pending consideration before this court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36911 RSA No. 463 of 2014 19. The plaintiff has not questioned the aforementioned judgment and decree in the suit filed by the State. That means, the plaintiff is admitting that the State is in possession of the suit property. 20. The real question is, whether the plaintiff is the owner or the State is the owner of the property. This question has to be adjudicated, by arraying the State as a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.537/2002. 21. Under these circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court are not sustainable and have to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the trial court to consider the case afresh in accordance with law. 22. The plaintiff shall implead the State as a party to the proceedings. 23. The plaintiff is also permitted to make necessary changes in the plaint and to incorporate - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36911 RSA No. 463 of 2014 necessary prayer. The defendants are also permitted to file additional written statement and the State is also permitted to file written statement in support of the case. 24. The case has to be adjudicated in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in the judgment in O.S.No.485/2013. 25. It is also made clear that there is no need to issue notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure before impleading the State as a party to the proceeding. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part; ii) The Judgment and decree dated 19.07.2011 in R.A.No.577/2010 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mysore, are set aside. iii) The judgment and decree dated 23.12.2006 in O.S No.537/2002 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mysore, are set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36911 RSA No. 463 of 2014 iv) The parties shall appear for the Trial Court on 09.10.2025 without any further notice. v) It is noticed that the plaintiff is aged 82 years and therefore, the parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the case. vi) All contentions of the parties are kept open. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK ...