Dismissed

Bangalore Development Authority v. Mr. Rudranarasimha Murthy

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2021MFA/1155/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by the Bangalore Development Authority challenging an interim injunction maintaining status quo. The Court held that since there was a triable issue regarding the genuineness of documents and an outstanding sale deed, the lower court was justified in its order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order maintaining status quo and granting temporary injunction was upheld.

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Mr. Rudranarasimha… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1155 OF 2020 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 020 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

[BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

MR. RUDRANARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE Y.C. ANKAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.295, 25^TH CROSS 6^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 082

¶13

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHISHIRA AMARANATH AND VISHWANATH VENKATESH, ADVOCATES)

¶14

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2019 PASSED ON IA.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.6266/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU

¶15

¶16

(CCH-42), PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed by the defendant assailing the Order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the 41^st Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-42) in OS No.6266/2018, by which an application filed for temporary injunction was allowed in part and the parties were directed to maintain status-quo.

¶20

It is seen from the plaint which is placed on record that the respondent herein filed OS No.6266/2018 for permanent injunction in respect of a residential site and contended that he was allotted the said site by the appellant herein and was placed in possession in terms of the possession certificate dated 08.10.1985 and that he had constructed a building thereon. He claimed that the construction so put up was after obtaining the sanction

¶21

¶22

plan from the competent authority in the year 1997 and that the plaintiff had been paying the property tax in respect of the aforesaid property. The plaintiff claimed that on 04.08.2018, the officials of the appellant along with other goons, tried to damage the building existing on the schedule property and thus, he sought to protect his possession by filing the present suit for injunction. Along with the suit, he also sought for temporary injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering with the possession over the suit property.

¶23

The appellant herein contested the suit and contended that the documents relied upon by the respondent herein were all fraudulent and an enquiry, in that regard, was conducted and it was found that the respondent herein had not filed any corresponding application seeking allotment of a site and that the sale deed and other documents were obtained fraudulently.

¶24

¶25

Learned Counsel for the appellant brought to the

¶26

notice of this Court the statement of the respondent recorded on 4.9.2012 wherein he stated that a person named Nagaraju, claiming to be an employee of the appellant, had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent to obtain possession certificate in respect of the property in question and had also conspired in executing the sale deed. The learned Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the cancellation deed dated 1.3.2016 by which the alleged fraudulent sale deed in favour of the respondent was cancelled. The learned Counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that the suit property was allotted to a third party on 25.7.2016. The learned Counsel stressed on the finding of the Court below that the respondent-plaintiff was not in possession of the property and therefore, he contended that the Court below was not justified in directing the parties to maintain

¶27

status quo.

¶28

¶29

It is seen from the plaint that the respondent-

¶30

plaintiff claimed that he was allotted a site and consequently, was placed in possession in terms of a possession certificate dated 8.7.1985. He also claimed

¶31

that a lease cum sale agreement was executed on 8.7.1991 which was registered on 10.7.1991. He also claimed that he constructed a building after obtaining requisite plan from the competent authority on 29.3.1997 and that the property in question was assessed to tax by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 5.2.1992 and that he had been paying tax till the year 1998. He contended that the appellant-defendant and its officials were attempting to interfere with the possession of the respondent-plaintiff over the suit property. The written statement filed by the appellant-defendant before the Court below indicates that the land in question was allotted to one Kamakshamma and a sale deed was executed on 25.7.2016 and possession of the suit property

¶32

was handed over on 26.7.2016. It is stated that the

¶33

¶34

appellant had demolished the unauthorised construction put up by the respondent on 3.8.2018 and 4.8.2018 and handed over possession of the suit property to Smt. Kamakshamma.

¶35

It is not in dispute that the sale deed executed by the appellant-defendant in favour of the respondentplaintiff was outstanding and it was incumbent upon the appellant-defendant to have taken necessary steps for cancellation of the sale deed as held by this Court in K RAJU VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in ILR 2011 KAR 120 . However, the appellantdefendant had unilaterally cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and had demolished the construction over the suit property. Since the case presented a triable issue as to whether the documents relied upon the by respondent-plaintiff were genuine or not, the Court below was justified in directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit

¶36

¶37

property. I do not find any error in the reasoning adopted by the Court below to maintain status quo. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/- JUDGE

¶39

GH/Cs

Bangalore Development Authority v. Mr. Rudranarasimha Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Development Authority v. Mr. Rudranarasimha Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M v Ramarao Vs Sri Keshavamurthy G C

K. Murugesan Vs State by Hennur Police

Sri Yellappa Vs the Station House Officer

Mohan Kumar Vs the Manager

N Prakash Vs K R Suresh

Smt Sukanya Vs Icici Lombard Gen Ins Co. Ltd.