What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the trial court was justified in impleading respondents 3 and 4 as parties to the suit. No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order allowing the impleading application.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in a civil suit, sought to quash an order allowing an impleading application. Respondents 3 and 4 claimed tenancy rights over the land in question, which was previously attached by the Income Tax Department and they were appointed as receivers to sell it.

What were the issues?

Whether respondents 3 and 4, appointed as receivers for the sale of land attached by the Income Tax Department, are necessary parties to a suit concerning tenancy rights over that land.

Vasanthamma vs The Commissioner | Karnataka High Court 2013

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA

WRIT PETITION NO.10527/2012 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

VASANTHAMMA

WIFE OF MUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

R/AT HENNUR VILLAGE

THIPPENAHALLI POST

SIDLAGHATTA TALUK

CHICKABALAPUR DISTRICT

RATHNAMMA

WIFE OF RANGAPPA

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

R/AT NO.557, MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET

KADUGONDANAHALLI

BANGALORE-560 045

SRINIVAS

SON OF LATE CHIKKANAIAH

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

R/AT NO.557, MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET

KADUGONDANAHALLI

BANGALORE-560 045 …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADV., FOR M/S A. NAGARAJAPPA & ASSTS., ADVS.,)

AND :

THE COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST

BANGALORE-560 020

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

ENFORCEMENT CELL

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST

BANGALORE-560 020

JANAB C.A. MALLICK

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

NO.4, PERIYAMMA MESTRI STREET

PERIAPET, CHENNAI

K.A. KARREM

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

NO.148 (138), VEREVY HIGH

SCHOOL, CHENNAI

BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER

(A) A.S. ANWAR SHARIFF SON OF LATE ABDUL SATTAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENT SALMAN SHARIFF SON OF A.S. ANWAR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.80 (2) BENSON CROSS ROAD BENSON TOWN BANGALORE-560 046 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV., FOR C/R3-R4; SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR BDA (VK FILED);

3 SRI. B.V. SHANKAR NARAYAN RAO, ADV., FOR BDA COPY SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.1.2012 IN O.S.NO.9945/98 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE ALLOWING THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Petitioners who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.9945/1998 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City, are before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 06.01.2012 passed on I.A.No.8 (impleading application) filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC by respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 who have been impleaded

4 by the trial Court as per the impugned order are not necessary parties for adjudication of the case.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that one Chikkannaiah had filed Form No.7 claiming the tenancy right in respect of the land in question before the Land Tribunal and said application was allowed by the Land Tribunal without disclosing the fact that the land belonging to Hazi Mohammed Ismail Sait was attached by Income Tax Department and C.A. Malick and K.A. Kareem (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) were appointed as receivers in O.S.No.11/1970 before the Civil Court at Chennai to sell the land and deposit the same before the Income Tax for adjustment towards tax duties.

In view of the above, trial Court is justified in impleading the applicants as defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

In the result, writ petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.

Sd/- JUDGE

PMR

VASANTHAMMA vs. THE COMMISSIONER

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments