SAROJA Vs. DAKSHINAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.125/2015 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru have filed this writ petition challenging an order dtd. 21/4/2022 passed therein, by which an application filed by them under Sec. 151 of C.P.C. was rejected.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.125/2015 was filed for a declaration that the Will executed on 19/6/2006 and registered on 22/6/2006 by Shivanna in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4 did not bind the plaintiffs and to declare that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have no right over the suit schedule properties and consequently to declare the sale deed dtd. 31/3/2016 executed by them in favour of defendant No.5 as not binding upon them and consequently to effect partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The suit was contested by defendant Nos.1 to 4, who admitted the relationship with the plaintiffs, but denied the averments of the plaint and denied the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.5, who was the pendente lite purchaser filed his written statement justifying his purchase of suit item No.1. Based on these rival contentions, the suit was set down for trial. At the trial, P.W.1 was cross-examined by defendant No.5 on various aspects relating to the suit properties, the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants and regarding the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the suit property. In addition, the said defendant No.5 posed questions to P.W.1 relating to the Will allegedly executed by Shivanna in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application under Sec. 151 of C.P.C. requesting the Trial Court to restrict defendant No.5 to cross-examine P.W.1 only to the extent of pendente lite purchase made by him. The Trial Court in terms of the order, which is impugned in this writ petition, rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that defendant No.5 is a pendente lite purchaser and had no knowledge about the affairs in the family. Further, defendant No.5 had no clue about the Will allegedly executed by Shivanna in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and therefore he was not entitled to question P.W.1 about the same.