Dismissed

M/S Arudrama Developments Private Limited v. M Manjula

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2021CRP/66/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision filed under Section 115 CPC against the trial court's order dismissing Order VII Rule 11 application, the High Court held that the suit for perpetual injunction disclosed a cause of action and the order did not call for interference, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition dismissed; the impugned order of the trial court stood affirmed.

M/S Arudrama Developments Private Limited Vs M Manjula — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.66 OF 2021 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S ARUDRAMA DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER

¶9

THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1134, 1^ST FLOOR, 100 FEET ROAD INDIRANAGAR, HAL 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560008 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ANAND SUBRAMANIAN

¶10

SRI. ANAND SUBRAMANIAN S/O A SUBRAMANIAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AT: NO.1134, 1^ST FLOOR, 100 FEET ROAD INDIRANAGAR, HAL 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560008

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. K.R. KRISHNAMURTHY-ADVOCATE-PH)

¶13

AND:

¶14

M. MANJULA W/O LATE G. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT O.2514, 27^TH DIVISION RAJIPURA-GANGADHARAPURA DODDABALLAPURA TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203

¶15

¶16

G.N. MADHUSUDHAN S/O LATE G.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.2514, 27^TH DIVISION RAJIPURA-GANGADHARAPURA DODDABALLAPURA TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203

¶17

RADHA. K W/O G.N. MADHUSUDHAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.2514, 27^TH DIVISION RAJIPURA-GANGADHARAPURA DODDABALLAPURA TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203

¶18

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR GPA HOLDERS M/S AAKAR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.D-1101 SHRIRAM SAHAANA, NAGENAHALLI DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560064

¶19

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS

¶20

JAYESH DOLL S/O SRI. HARIVADAN DOLIA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶21

SRI. BABULAL M. JAIN S/O SRI. MISRIMAL JAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA.V, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS.NO.317/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(A) AND (D) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC.

¶25

¶26

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This Revision Petition is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.317/2020 challenging the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, at Doddaballapura (henceforth referred to as 'trial Court') dated 27.11.2020, by which an application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.

¶29

A suit in O.S.No.317/2020 was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of residentially converted land in Sy.No.69/2 of Adinarayana Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District measuring 4 acres 4 guntas.

¶30

The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff No.1 on 31.07.1987. It is stated that the plaintiff No.1 had bequeathed the suit property to plaintiff No.2 in terms of a deed of gift dated 28.03.2016. Later, the daughters of the plaintiff No.1 and sisters of plaintiff No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.350/2017 before the

¶31

¶32

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Doddaballapur for partition and separate possession. During the pendency of the said suit, a compromise was reported, in terms of which, the sisters of plaintiff No.2 executed a release deed dated 19.11.2018 in favour of plaintiff No.2 which was followed by the execution of the release deed dated 20.11.2018 by the children of plaintiff No.1. It was claimed that the plaintiff No.2, therefore, became the full and absolute owner of the land. The plaintiffs thereafter executed an agreement of sale dated 06.02.2019 in favour of the power of attorney holder and also executed a contemporaneous power of attorney authorising them to develop the property. It is claimed that the defendants herein approached the Superintendent of Police and tried to lodge a false complaint, which resulted in registration of Crime No.248/2020. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants were trying to interfere with the possession and therefore, sought for perpetual injunction.

¶33

The defendants after entering appearance filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Code of

¶34

¶35

Civil Procedure contending that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property in view of the express provision contained in the agreement of sale dated 06.02.2019. It was also stated that the plaintiffs had specifically averred in the plaint that the possession of the suit property was delivered to the intended purchasers and therefore, the suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable. In sofar as the ground urged under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, it was contended that the plaintiff No.1 prior to executing the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff No.2, had sold the suit property to the defendants on 24.05.1995 and therefore, the suit being mischievous was not maintainable.

¶36

The trial Court after considering the material on record, more particularly, the averments of the plaint held that the plaint did disclose a cause of action and that the plaint was not barred by any law. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition is filed by the defendants in the suit.

¶37

¶38

The learned counsel for the defendants contended that since the plaint itself indicated that the plaintiffs were not in possession, the suit for injunction was not maintainable. He also contended that the plaintiffs had already sold the suit property to the defendants long prior to the execution of the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff No.2 and hence, the suit was fraudulent in nature and that the plaintiffs had deliberately suppressed the material facts.

¶39

The suit in question was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of a residentially converted land. Though it is mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiffs had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the intended purchasers and had parted with the possession, it cannot be claimed that the plaintiffs are not in possession. The suit for injunction was to protect their possession as well as the possession of the intended purchasers and therefore, the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action as against the defendants and hence, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the defendants.

¶40

¶41

The learned counsel has relied upon Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to contend that when once the intended purchaser was put in possession of the property, the owner cannot contend to be in possession. This contention of the petitioners is not acceptable for more reason than one. Section 53A is a relief that has to be enforced by a transferee and the said relief is conditional and only on the transferee proving the said three conditions as set out in Section 53A, would he be entitled to the relief of remaining in possession of the property in question. The contention that the plaintiffs are ousted from possession or has lost possession in view of Section 53A is not acceptable. Hence, the said contention is rejected.

¶42

In sofar as the claim that the suit was filed fraudulently without disclosing the material facts, the said fact has to be adjudicated in a trial before the trial Court and therefore, the suit cannot be rejected at the threshold on the say of the defendants.

¶43

¶44

The trial Court has considered the contentions of the parties and has passed an apt order which does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Prs*

M/S Arudrama Developments Private Limited v. M Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Arudrama Developments Private Limited v. M Manjula

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

Sri Shantilal @ S P Jain Vs Smt Sunandamma

Philomina Pais Vs Deputy Commissioner

Precilla Pais Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S Hinduja Estate Developers Vs Smt. Chinamma

Sri Suraksha Kantharaj Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumanthappa Vs Rathnamma