Coram dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal challenging the trial Court's order confirming a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning agricultural land, finding no perversity, arbitrariness, or illegality in the lower Court's decision.
The appeal challenging the temporary injunction order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
M.F.A.No.3570/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16H DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3570/2021 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI L.P.SIDDAPPA S/O LATE LINGE GOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
ALL ARE R/AT SY.NO.63/1, MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE KRISHNARAJA SAGARA DHAKLE RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560 060 …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI P.SURESH, ADVOCATE)
M.F.A.No.3570/2021
2
AND:
SRI GALAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT MALIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560 060 …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2021 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.254/2020 ON IA NOS.1 & 2.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Heard.
injunction granted against them, the defendants in O.S.No.254/2020 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru have preferred the above appeal.
M.F.A.No.3570/2021
3
endorsement dated 28.06.2012 in respect of the suit schedule property.
father Sri Siddappa executed agreement of sale in his favour on 24.02.2012 initially in respect of 30 guntas of land. He claims that later under the endorsement dated 28.06.2012 Siddappa agreed to sell 2 acres including earlier 30 guntas for consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-. It was further claimed that by the time agreement of sale dated 24.02.2012 was executed, Siddappa had received Rs.32,00,000/-.
M.F.A.No.3570/2021
4
on 29.03.2001. Against that order, Renukappa preferred RFA No.404/2002 before this Court which came to be dismissed on 30.05.2008. Challenging that order, Renukappa preferred Civil Appeal
Nos.7398-7399/2010 which came to be dismissed on 14.11.2019.
M.F.A.No.3570/2021
5
sale deed. Therefore, they sought decree for specific performance.
M.F.A.No.3570/2021
6
appellants reiterating the grounds of the appeal submits that the trial Court could not have granted exparte temporary injunction in respect of agricultural land. He further submits that the agreement of sale and the endorsement are doubtful documents. He submits the trial Court without considering the delay in filing the suit and other circumstances has granted interim injunction, therefore the order is perverse. It is also contended that the criminal case is filed against the respondent for forging the agreement of sale.
13. Sri N.R.Jagadeeshwara, learned Counsel for
the respondent justifies the impugned order reiterating the grounds stated in the plaint as well in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1. He further submits that the appellants and his father needed money for family necessity and to attend to the litigation, therefore they have executed the agreement of sale. He submits that the criminal case has no relevance for the purpose of this case. He further submits that the appellants are in the
M.F.A.No.3570/2021
7
habit of executing such agreement and receiving money from the plaintiff. He submits that one Kalegowda has filed similar suit against the appellants in O.S.No.1206/2020 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, that itself goes to show that the appellants are likely to dispose of the property, if injunction is vacated.
M.F.A.No.3570/2021
8
M.F.A.No.3570/2021
9
by the appellants. Now by disposal of the application on merits such order merged into the final order. Whether ex-parte interim injunction granted by the trial Court was contrary to Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is not the question for consideration in this appeal. Therefore that contention cannot be countenanced now.
does not find any perversity, arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
KSR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in confirming temporary injunction or vacating it in a suit for specific performance regarding agricultural land.
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal challenging the grant of temporary injunction.
Sri L.P. Siddappa S/o Late Linge Gowda since deceased by his LRS
Sri Mante Swamy S/o Late L.P. Siddappa Major
Sri Sivakumar S/o Late L.P. Siddappa Major
Sri Jayashankara S/o Late L.P. Siddappa Major
Smt. Bhuvaneshwari D/o Late L.P. Siddappa Major
Sri Shanmukha S/o Late L.P. Siddappa Major
K.S. Mudagal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
