Disposed

Sri. C. Srinivasa v. Sri. M. Manjunath

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2021MFA/1045/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two Miscellaneous First Appeals filed to set aside a trial court order rejecting a temporary injunction application and allowing vacation of an interim injunction. The court observed that prima facie documents showed the appellant was in possession, directed maintenance of status quo, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of status quo directed; trial court directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

Sri. C. Srinivasa Vs Sri. M. Manjunath — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

M.F.A.No.1045/2020 c/w M.F.A.No.1048/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1045/2020 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1048/2020 (CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI C SRINIVASA S/O SRI M CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.133, 5^TH CROSS “VEERABHADRA NAGARA” HOSAKERAHALLI BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085 …APPELLANT (COMMON)

¶10

(BY SRI MOHAN.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI M MANJUNATH S/O LATE MURUGEESH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶13

SRI M RAJESH S/O SRI M MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.130 OPPOSITE TO PES COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING HOSAKERAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU – 560 085 …RESPONDENTS (COMMON)

¶15

(BY SRI T A KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

M.F.A.No.1045/2020 c/w M.F.A.No.1048/2020

¶17

¶18

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED BY THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-18) IN O.S.NO.3452/2019 ON IA NOS.3 & 2 RESPECTIVELY.

¶19

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

With consent of both side, the matters are taken up

¶22

for final disposal.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

Aggrieved by the rejection of his application

¶25

for temporary injunction and allowing the application of the defendants for vacating the interim injunction, the plaintiff in O.S.No.3452/2019 has preferred the above appeals.

¶26

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the father and

¶27

son. The appellant filed aforesaid suit against the defendants for permanent injunction. The subject matter of the suit is house property bearing No.133 out of Survey No.74 of Hosakerehalli Grama, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 40’ x 30’.

¶28

M.F.A.No.1045/2020 c/w M.F.A.No.1048/2020

¶29

¶30

The property in Survey No.74 originally belonged to one Eraramaiah. That was granted to him by the Government on 28.12.1975 under the Government Scheme dated 13.05.1972. The appellant claims to have purchased the same under the General Power of Attorney and the affidavit accompanying the General Power of Attorney dated 06.09.2003. He claims that he is in possession of the property all along.

¶31

In the suit, the appellant filed application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession. Initially, the trial Court had granted ex-parte temporary injunction. The defendants appeared and contested the application and the suit. They also filed I.A.No.2 for vacating the interim injunction.

¶32

Respondents claimed that Murugesh the father of respondent No.1 was granted 4 acres of land in Survey No.87. They further claimed that some people encroached over the said property. Therefore, he filed O.S.No.4946/1988 against the encroachers. That was

¶33

M.F.A.No.1045/2020 c/w M.F.A.No.1048/2020

¶34

¶35

decreed. The respondents claim that they took possession of the property in Execution Petition No.2366/2005.

¶36

Defendant No.1 filed O.S.No.5295/2012

¶37

against Sri M.Chinnaswamy, father of the plaintiff for declaration and possession in respect of Survey No.87. That was decreed on 20.02.2019. It is submitted that for execution of that decree, execution petition was filed by defendant No.1.

¶38

In the meantime, defendant No.1 and his siblings filed O.S.No.2502/1992 for partition and in that suit, Survey No.87 was allotted to the share of defendant No.1. On the basis of those documents, the defendants claim that they are in possession. Relying on those documents, the trial Court vacated the interim injunction order and rejected the application of the appellant for injunction.

¶39

The trial Court failed to note that neither Survey No.74 nor Site No.133 were subject matter of

¶40

M.F.A.No.1045/2020 c/w M.F.A.No.1048/2020

¶41

¶42

O.S.No.5295/2012 nor the appellant was party to the said suit. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are ready to maintain the status-quo and the matter may be disposed of directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

¶43

The documents produced by the appellant, at this stage, prima-facie show that he was in possession of the property as on the date of the suit. Therefore that status shall be maintained till disposal of O.S.No.3452/2019.

¶44

In view of submission of learned Counsel for the respondents, with the above observations, these appeals are disposed of.

¶45

The trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Both parties shall cooperate for trial.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

KSR

Sri. C. Srinivasa v. Sri. M. Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C. Srinivasa v. Sri. M. Manjunath

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

Smt Shanthi Vs the Commissioner

Sri Tilok Chand Vs Sri P Narayana

S Shilpa Vs Sri S Muralikrishna

Sri Muni Reddy Vs Smt Sarojamma

S Nagarajan Vs Smt Sanjeevamma

Smt N Susheela Vs Smt Geetha v