Quashed

Sudha M v. the Station House Officer

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2013WP/12242/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an undertaking given by the petitioner to the police during a complaint proceeding regarding a civil suit for specific performance. The Court held that since the petitioner was not a party to the suit, no order existed against her requiring such an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

The undertaking dated 22.02.2013 given by the petitioner to the police (Annexure-F) is hereby quashed.

Sudha M Vs the Station House Officer — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF APRIL, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.12242 OF 2013 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUDHA M AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O.SATISH K., PRESENTLY R/AT NO.2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, SUBEDARPALYA, YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI L.GOVINDRAJ, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER YESHWANTHPUR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560022.

¶12

2 NIRMALA S AGED ABOUT 37 EYARS, W/O.SURESH KUMAR, R/AT NO.10, 1ST "A" MAIN, ROAD, 1ST STAGE, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, BANGALORE-560079.

¶13

3 LATHA JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O.G.V.JAYARAMA REDDY, R/AT NO.81, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560020 ...RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI R.B.SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI M.ERAPPA REDDY, ADV. FOR R3)

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PETITIONERS PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS ALSO HER LIGITIMATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THEREON

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the petition schedule property and that he has been putting up construction on the said property. The 3^rd respondent has filed a civil suit O.S.No.26591/12 for specific performance of the agreement dated 19.2.2011 against the 2^nd respondent before the 28^th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. In the said case, the Civil Court has granted an interim order restraining the 2^nd respondent (defendant therein) from putting up any construction in the suit schedule property. The defendant is also restrained from alienating the suit schedule property.

¶21

It appears that the 3^rd respondent filed a complaint before the 1^st respondent against the 2^nd

¶22

¶23

respondent contending that the 2^nd respondent is disobeying the said order. On the basis of the said complaint, the 1^st respondent has summoned the brother of the petitioner and has obtained an undertaking from him that he will not proceed with the construction. Therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs.

¶24

(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing

¶25

respondent No.1 not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession of the schedule property as also her legitimate construction activity thereon.

¶26

(b) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the undertaking dated 22.02.213 given by the petitioner to the police under duress is non-est and unenforceable in law (Annexure-F).

¶27

As noticed above, in the suit filed by the 3^rd respondent against the 2^nd respondent, the trial court has restrained the 2^nd respondent from putting up any

¶28

¶29

construction in the suit schedule property. The said interim order is not binding on the petitioner as she is not a party to the suit. Since there is no order of the civil court against the petitioner, question of obtaining an undertaking from her in respect of the said property does not arise. Therefore, the undertaking at Annexure-F is hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the parties to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs.

¶30

It is hereby clarified that the observations made in the course of this order shall not be construed as expressing any opinion relating to title or possession of the property. No costs.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

KLY/

Sudha M v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha M v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nine Star Friends Association Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sri K B Dadapeer Vs the Deputy Director

Sri P Mukundan Vs Smt Radhika Vasudevan

K N Dinesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L. Kishore Kumar Vs Smt Sumana Kishore

Sri Vinayaka Education Society (R) Vs the State of Karnataka