Partly allowed

Dr.S.Sheela Bhanumathi v. Sri.Pilla Reddy

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2021MFA/3839/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application. The Court held that a prima facie case existed and found a triable issue regarding property title. It directed the maintenance of status quo, clubbed three related suits for disposal, and directed the appellant to appear in the main suit. Quality: thin. This is

What did the court decide?

Interim injunction rejected, but status quo maintained until disposal of clubbed suits. Directions to club suits and allow appellant to appear in main suit without notice.

Dr.S.Sheela Bhanumathi Vs Sri.Pilla Reddy — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

MFA No.3839/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3839/2021(CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

DR.S.SHEELA BHANUMATHI W/O LATE K JANAKARAJAN AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS NO.104/5, SHEELA ESTATES HOSUR MAIN ROAD, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU 560068 [ REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI VENURAJ KANAKARAJAN S/O K JANAKARAJAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO. 104/5, SHEELA ESTATES HOSUR MAIN ROAD SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 068 …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI NISHANTH A V, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SRI.PILLA REDDY S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA @ PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEHIND KARAGADAMMA TEMPLE BEGUR HOBLI, BENGLAURU SOUTH TALUK BENGLAURU 560068

¶13

MFA No.3839/2021

¶14

¶15

SRI SARVESH REDDY S/O PILLA REDDY 35 YEARS R/AT SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEHIND KARAGADAMMA TEMPLE BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 068 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI M.V.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADV.FOR C/R.1 & 2)

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NOS I AND II IN OS.NO.25201/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU CCH-21, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.I FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.

¶18

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 29.09.2021 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Aggrieved by rejection of her application for grant of temporary injunction and allowing the application of the defendants for vacating the injunction order, the plaintiff has preferred the above appeal.

¶21

Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court. For the purpose of the convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial court.

¶22

MFA No.3839/2021

¶23

¶24

The plaintiff filed OS No. 25201/2021 against the defendants for permanent injunction to restrain them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with her possession of the suit schedule property and encroaching upon or causing any damage to the suit schedule property.

¶25

The subject matter of the suit is 25 guntas of land out of 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.104/05 (old Sy.No.104/4) of Singasandra village with a shed thereon. The boundaries of the land are shown as follows:

¶26

East: Hosur Main Road & Motappa’s land (now Chikkabegur Metro Station.

¶27

West: Sy.No.103/5A2

¶28

North:Sy.No.104/3 Now Kushal Raj & family South Sy.No.104/4

¶29

The case of the plaintiff in brief is as

¶30

follows:-

¶31

She purchased 37 guntas of the land in Sy.No.103/5-A, 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.104/4 in all measuring 2 acre 6 guntas from wife and children of

¶32

MFA No.3839/2021

¶33

¶34

one Krishnappa under the registered sale deed dated 12.07.1984. She got converted the said land along with Sy.No.103/5A2 measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.136 for non-agricultural use. In revision survey, Sy.No.103/5A was bifurcated as Sy.No.103/5A1 and Sy.No.103/5A2. Sy.No.104/4 was bifurcated as Sy.No.104/4 and Sy.No.104/5. The portion of Sy.No.104/5 was acquired for laying the elevated High Way and for erecting metro lines. The plaintiff has received the compensation for the same. After such acquisition 25 guntas of land has remained in Sy.No.104/5. Plaintiff has put-up a shed in the said land securing electricity connection. Her name was entered in the Revenue records and she has paid the tax. When her workers were cutting the tree in the land for the purpose of fencing, the defendants and their people obstructed the same and they are trying to trespass into the said property without any rights. Therefore she seeks decree for permanent injunction etc.

¶35

MFA No.3839/2021

¶36

¶37

In the suit she filed IA No.I for temporary injunction. Initially exparte injunction was granted. On appearance the defendants filed their written statement and IA No.2 for vacating interim injunction.

¶38

The case of the defendants is as follows:-

¶39

(i) Sy.No.104/4 was not measuring 1 acre 9 guntas. The plaintiff’s vendor had no title to sell the property to her. Sy.No.104/4 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas belongs to defendants. Initially that belonged to their great grandfather Muniswamappa. On his death under the registered partition dated 15.04.1940 between father of defendant No.1 and other heirs of Muniswamappa, Sy.No.104/4 had fallen to the share of Sri Muninanjappa, the father of defendant No.1.

¶40

(ii) Muninanjappa got 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.104/1. The remaining 1 acre 9 guntas was allotted to the share of LRs of Nanjappa. Thereafter the children of first and second wives of Nanjappa partitioned their properties under registered partition deed dated 15.05.1940. In that partition, 1 acre 9

¶41

MFA No.3839/2021

¶42

¶43

guntas in Sy.No.104/1 had fallen to the share of Ramaiah and Krishnappa.

¶44

(iii) Under the registered exchange deed dated 17.02.1981 Muninanjappa father of defendant No.1 got 1 acre 21 guntas in Sy.No.104/4 in exchange of his property bearing Sy.No.104/1 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas with the heirs of Chinnaiah. At no point of time the land bearing Sy.No.104/4 belonged to the vendors of the plaintiff and the said sale deed is fraudulent. The revenue entries relied by the plaintiff are fraudulent one. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.

¶45

The trial Court on hearing both side, by the impugned order rejected plaintiff’s IA No.I for temporary injunction and allowed the IA No.2 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC and vacated the exparte temporary injunction order granted on 02.02.2021 on the following grounds.

¶46

i) Plaintiff’s vendor under the partition deed got Sy.No.104/1 and not Sy.No.104/4. Therefore the plaintiff’s vendor had no title or possession over the

¶47

MFA No.3839/2021

¶48

¶49

said property. Therefore the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff cannot be countenanced.

¶50

ii) The suit properties are almost vacant land. The plaintiff’s documents do not support her contention that she is residing there.

¶51

iii) The document like receiving compensation securing electricity connection, conversion of the land and Revenue entries do not confer lawful title or possession on her. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to make out a prima-facie case.

¶52

Sri A.V.Nishanth, learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned orders on the following grounds:

¶53

i) At the stage of considering the temporary injunction application only prima facie possession of the applicant as on the date of the suit has to be seen.

¶54

ii) Though plaintiff produced huge number of documents to prove her possession, the trial Court did not refer to any of those documents.

¶55

MFA No.3839/2021

¶56

¶57

iii) Though under the partition deeds the property allotted to the share of father of the vendor of the plaintiff was shown as Sy.No.104/1, actually that was Sy.No.104/4. There was mistake only in mentioning the survey number and all boundaries mentioned in partition deeds and other documents tallied with the boundaries shown in the sale deed of the plaintiff.

¶58

iv) To the exchange deed dated 17.02.1981 the plaintiff’s vendors were not parties.

¶59

v) The impugned orders suffer perversity as the material documents were not considered.

¶60

vi) When there is dispute between the boundaries and the survey number, the boundaries shall prevail for identifying the property.

¶61

In support of his contentions he relies on the following judgments:

¶62

i) Subhadra & ors vs. Thankam¹

¶63

ii) Sidgandi Eranna vs. Korishetty Budeppa²

1 (2010)11 SCC 514

MFA No.3839/2021

iii) Sri Nanjappa vs. Sri Doddiah and another³

¶68

iv) Narasimha Shastry vs. Mangesha Devaru⁴

¶69

v) Ramegowda (dead) by LRs. Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRs. And another⁵

¶70

vi) Ramji Rai and another vs. Jagdish Mallah(dead) through LRs and another⁶

¶71

vii) Anathulla Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) By LRs. And others⁷

¶72

Per contra, Shri Chandrashekara Reddy learned counsel for the respondents justifies the impugned order on the following grounds:

¶73

i) None of the documents produced by the plaintiff showed that plaintiff’s predecessors in title were allotted Sy.No.104/4 in partition.

¶74

ii) All the revenue documents, electricity bill etc were the outcome of fraud and collusion. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the entries rightly directed the parties to get the title decided in

¶75

2 2015 SCC Online Kar 5079

¶76

3 ILR 2009 Kar 2294

¶77

4 1987 SCC Online Kar. 278

¶78

5 (2004)1 SCC 769

¶79

6 (2007)14 SCC 200

¶80

7 (2008) 4 SCC 594

¶81

MFA No.3839/2021

¶82

¶83

O.S.No.8233/2014 filed by defendant No.1. The said order is confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.16988/2017.

¶84

iii) Having regard to the order of this Court in the said writ petition the trial Court was justified in vacating the injunction order.

¶85

iv) The impugned order does not suffer any perversity, arbitrariness and capriciousness.

¶86

v) Though the plaintiff alleges fraud and collusion, there was no specific pleading to that effect.

¶87

vi) The plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts and making false representation.

¶88

In support of his contentions he relies on the following judgments:

¶89

i) Eureka Builders and others Gulabchand and others⁸

¶90

ii) Rudrappa vs. Prakash⁹

¶91

iii) Kathala Yellaiah and others vs. Kathala Chandraiah¹⁰

¶92

8 (2018)8 SCC 67

¶93

9 2019(2) Kar. L.R.558

¶94

10 Manu/AP/0491/1999

¶95

MFA No.3839/2021

¶96

¶97

iv) Mirza Mohammed Yousuf Baig vs. M/s Deccan Enterprises¹¹

¶98

v) Premji Ratansey Shah and ors vs. Union of India (UOI) and others¹²

¶99

vi) Lakshminarasimhiah and others vs. Yalakki Gowd¹³

¶100

vii) Gowrishankara Swamigalu vs. Sri Siddhaganga Mutt¹⁴

¶101

viii) K.Gopala Reddy (deceased) by LRs vs. Suryanarayana and ors¹⁵

¶102

ix) Wander Ltd and another vs. Antox India P.Ltd¹⁶

¶103

x) Mahendra Singh and Ors. Vs. Senior Citizen Home Complex Welfare Society and ors¹⁷

¶104

xi) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and ors¹⁸

¶105

Having regard to the rival contentions, the

¶106

question that arises for consideration of the Court is,

¶107

“whether the trial Court’s order declining to continue the interim injunction suffers the

¶108

11 ILR 1996 Kar 1618

¶109

12 Manu/SC/0819/1994

¶110

13 AIR 1965 Mys. 310

¶111

14 ILR 1989 Kar 1701

¶112

15 2004(1) KCCR 662

¶113

16 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727

¶114

17 Manu/UP/2701/2011

¶115

18 AIR 1994 SC 853

¶116

MFA No.3839/2021

¶117

¶118

vice of perversity, arbitrariness and capriciousness ?”

¶119

Though both the parties relied on several judgments, the sum and substance of all those judgments is that relief of injunction can be granted only if the plaintiff/applicant makes out prima-facie case and satisfies the Court that the balance of convenience lies in his/her favour. The applicant has to further show that if injunction is not granted, he/she suffers irreparable injury.

¶120

Prima-face case means prima facie legal right of the applicant that the suit is not vexatious and there is a triable issue. In those judgments, it is further held that order granting or refusing the interim injunction being discretionary one, cannot be interfered by the appellate Court unless such order suffers vice of perversity, arbitrariness or capriciousness.

¶121

Perversity means deciding against the weight of the evidence or settled legal position. Arbitrariness and capriciousness also akin to that.

¶122

MFA No.3839/2021

¶123

¶124

17. This case has a chequered history. The title

¶125

to the property in dispute flows from one Peddanna. Pedigree of said Peddanna is as follows:-

¶126

Genealogy

¶127

Peddanna (Great Grandfather) (Died)

¶128

Thimmarayappa (Son) (Died)

¶129

_______ Chinnaiah (Died) A-Schedule Branch-I Venkatappa (Son) (Died) Pillanna	_________________ Muniswamappa Branch-II Muninanjappa (Son) Uruf Papayya (Died) (B-Schedule)	________________________ Nanjaiah (Branch-III) ----------------------------------------- Ramakka(1^stwife) Chinneeramma ---------------- Muniyappa @ Keechappa (son) (dead) Ramayya(Son) (C-Schedule) (dead)	(2^ndwife) ----------------- Krishnappa (Son) (Died)
(Son) (Died)		Balareddy(1^stson) (Died)	Kalyanamma(wife)
Chikka Biddappa (Son) (Died)	Pillareddy (Son) (62 yrs	) Jayalakshmi (Wife) Gopalareddy(2^ndson)
Annayappa (Son) (Died)		Babureddy (3rd son)	Purushottam(1^stson) Sridhar (2^ndson) Shanthamma(daughter) Nanjamma (daughter) Girijamma (daughter) Chandramma (daughter) Manjula (daughter) Mallika (daughter) Yashodha (daughter)

¶130

18. Defendant No.1 Pillareddy belongs to the

¶131

branch of Muniswamappa. The vendors of the plaintiff belong to branch of Nanjaiah. Since there is repetition of the same names to avoid confusion the branches of

¶132

MFA No.3839/2021

¶133

¶134

Chinnaiah, Muniswamappa and Nanjaiah are referred to henceforth as members of branch I,II and III respectively.

¶135

Land in Sy.No.104/1 in all measured 2 acres 18 guntas. The land in Sy.No.104/4 measured 1 acres 21 guntas. The plaintiff contends that the property allotted to the share of branch III was Sy.No.104/4 but by mistake in the partition deed dated 15.04.1940 it was shown as Sy.No.104/1. There is no dispute that the members of branch I, II and heirs of Nanjaiah (branch III) partitioned the properties of Peddanna under registered partitioned dated 15.04.1940. The document was registered on 25.04.1940.

¶136

As per that partition deed Sy.No.104/4 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas of Singasandra village was allotted to the share of branch-I (Chinnaiah). In Sy.No.104/1 in all measuring 2 acre 18 guntas 1 acre 9 guntas was allotted to the share of Branch II (Muniswamappa) and 1 acre 9 guntas to the share of heirs of Branch-III (Nanjaiah). Under that document

¶137

MFA No.3839/2021

¶138

¶139

Sy.No.104/4 was not allotted to the share of branch-II and branch-III, nor Sy.No.104/1 was allotted to the share of branch-I. Nanjaiah the head of branch-III died prior to the partition. He had two wives by name Ramakka and Chinneeramma.

¶140

Under the registered partition deed dated

¶141

17.05.1940 amongst heirs of branch-III the land bearing Sy.No.104/1 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas was allotted to Ramaiah and Krishnappa the minor sons of 2^nd wife Chinneeramma. The first wife’s son Muniyappa @ Keechappa did not take any share in that property. Krishnappa S/o Chinneeramma (branch-III) under the registered sale deed dated 04.02.1971 sold 27½ guntas in Sy.No.104/1 to one Ramaiah S/o Nanjappa. In that document it is stated that there was oral partition between him and his elder brother and they are enjoying the property separately, the property fallen to his share is sold under the document and purchaser is put in possession of the same.

¶142

MFA No.3839/2021

¶143

¶144

After that under registered exchange deed dated 17.02.1981 the members of branch-I and branchII exchanged the properties. The document says that the members of branch II are given 2 acre 18 guntas in Sy.No.104/1 to members of branch I in exchange of 1 acre 21 guntas in Sy.No.104/4. In fact under the partition deed dated 15.04.1940 what was allotted to the share of Branch II was only 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.104/1. Therefore, at that stage first mischief was played in exchanging 2 acres 18 guntas instead of 1 acre 9 guntas. The members of branch III to whom 1 acre 9 guntas was allotted were not party to the said deed of exchange.

¶145

The mischief played under the exchange deed dated 17.02.1981 was further compounded by the members branch III by executing a registered sale deed dated 12.07.1984 in favour of plaintiff. Though the property allotted to the share of Branch III was 104/1, in the sale deed they have said that they are conveying Sy.No.104/4. At the cost of repetition, it has to be said

¶146

MFA No.3839/2021

¶147

¶148

that Sy.No.104/4 was allotted to the share of branch I and not branch III.

¶149

Purushotham, S/o Krishnappa grandson of Nanjaiah (Branch-III) filed O.S.No.2995/2007 before the City Civil Court, against his mother Kalyanamma. He claimed that himself and the other heirs of Krishnappa had share in Sy.No.103/5A measuring 37 guntas and Sy.No.104/4 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas and the same is sold to the present plaintiff without their knowledge and consent. Therefore, he claimed that the said sale does not bind him since he has half share in the said properties. The present plaintiff-Bhanumati alone appeared in the said suit and filed her written statement. Ultimately in the said suit they entered into a compromise on 18.01.2013 agreeing that 83764 square feet in suit property shall be given to the present plaintiff and the area in excess of 82764 sq.ft shall be taken by heirs of Krishnappa.

¶150

The land measuring 101 square meter in Sy.No.104/4 was acquired by KIADB for the purpose of

¶151

MFA No.3839/2021

¶152

¶153

N.H.7. The acquiring body under the award dated 07.05.2008 granted compensation of Rs.5,46,650/- to the plaintiff. The name of the plaintiff was entered into the revenue records.

¶154

Defendant No.1 challenged the said revenue records. After the compromise in O.S.No.2995/2007 on the basis of the dispute initiated by defendant No.1 in RRT No.186/2007-08, the Tahsildar directed to delete the name of the plaintiff from the revenue records with regard to 25 guntas in Sy.No.104/4. That matter reached the Court of the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.190/2014-15..

¶155

When RRT proceedings were pending before the Deputy Commissioner. Defendant No.1 filed O.S.No.8233/2014 against heirs of his uncle Krishnappa, Ramaiah (Branch III) and the present plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.104/1 new No.104/5. He claimed that 1 acre 21 guntas in Sy.No.104/4 had fallen to the share branch II through whom he claims and the vendors of the plaintiff had no right to sell the property.

¶156

MFA No.3839/2021

¶157

¶158

He also claimed that the proceedings in O.S.No.2995/2007 were collusive one and the said compromise decree does not bind him. He sought declaration of his title to Sy.No.104/4 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas, declaration that the compromise decree in O.S.No.2995/2007 does not bind him and for permanent injunction etc.

¶159

OS No.8233/2014 was dismissed for nonpayment of Court fee. He filed application for recalling of the order of dismissal for non-prosecution. In the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 07.03.2017 in Rev.P.No.190/2014-15 held that the case involves complicated questions of law and facts and those issues have to be decided in O.S.NO.8233/2014 filed by defendant No.1 herein. Therefore, setting aside the revenue entries he directed the parties to get their rights decided in the Civil Court.

¶160

The petitioner challenged that order before this Court in W.P.No.16988/2017. This Court by order dated 06.03.2019 held that branch I and Branch-II have

¶161

MFA No.3839/2021

¶162

¶163

entered into mischievous transactions and manipulated the records. It was further held that though land allotted to Branch II in Sy.No.104/1 was only 1 acre 9 guntas, under the exchange deed 2 acres 18 guntas was exchanged with branch I. It was held that similarly Branch III (the vendors of the plaintiff) instead of Sy.No.104/1 have shown Sy.No.104/4 in the sale deed. Though 27½ guntas in Sy.No.104/1 was already sold, in the sale deed of the plaintiff entire 1 acre 9 guntas was shown to be sold.

¶164

Ultimately in W.P.No.16988/2017 this Court held that since suit in O.S.No.8233/2014 is comprehensive one and is pending, all the contentions have to be sorted out in that suit. This Court directed to allow the application filed to recall order of dismissal of O.S.No.8233/2014 and to restore the suit. In para 8 of the judgment, it was held that subsequent internal arrangement effecting partition between one another among the family members of

¶165

MFA No.3839/2021

¶166

¶167

Peddanna would not alter the right of the plaintiff

¶168

(purchaser of the property).

¶169

Pending W.P.No.16988/2017 wife and children of Krishnappa (branch III) filed O.S.No.4158/2017 against the present defendants for permanent injunction claiming that under the compromise decree in O.S.No.2995/2007 ten guntas in Sy.No.103/5A and 104/1 was given to their share and defendants are obstructing their peaceful possession. Therefore, they sought decree for permanent injunction.

¶170

In that suit, they filed IA No.1 for permanent injunction. Exparte injunction was granted. On appearance the defendants contested the suit and filed IA No.3 for vacating the exparte injunction. On hearing both side XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru vide order dated 12.08.2017 allowed I.A.No.3 and vacated the injunction order. Against that

¶171

order they filed MFA No.6866/2017 (CPC) before this Court. This Court by order dated 27.09.2018 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of the trial

¶172

MFA No.3839/2021

¶173

¶174

Court. In that case also the defence of the defendants was same. Therefore, the defendants contend that since the plaintiff’s vendors prayer for grant of injunction was rejected and that order attained finality, she is not entitled to temporary injunction. In O.S.No.2995/2007 and MFA No.6866/2017 (CPC) the present plaintiff was not made a party. Subsequent to the judgment in M.F.A.No.6866/2017, this Court in W.P.No.16988/2017 has held that the heirs of Peddanna have played mischief in exchanging the properties by giving the properties in excess of the share allotted to them and rival contentions have to be decided in O.S.No.8233/2014. WP No.16988/2017 was between the parties to the present suit and others. Therefore that later development has to be taken into consideration.

¶175

The judgment relied on by both the counsel related to the principles of grant of injunction and regarding the identity of the property. The principles laid down on those judgments in granting or rejecting

¶176

MFA No.3839/2021

¶177

¶178

the injunction application is already discussed above. Therefore, this Court does not find it necessary to refer to those judgments elaborately.

¶179

The Special LAO made reference under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for deciding the rival claims of the plaintiff and the first defendant in respect of the award passed with regard to Sy.No.104/4. That case was registered in LAC No.93/2017.

¶180

The plaintiff filed W.P.No.33759/2018 (LA KIADB) before this Court challenging the said reference order. This Court by order dated 24.01.2019 directed for passing consent award in favour of the plaintiff for an area of 1064.5 sq. metres and set aside the order of reference to that extent. The first defendant challenged that order before this Court in W.A.No.1033/2019 (LA KIADB). This Court by order dated 27.11.2019 allowed the said appeal on the ground that the first defendant was necessary party to the writ petition and he should have been made a party and heard in the matter.

¶181

MFA No.3839/2021

¶182

¶183

The trial Court should have adhered to the order in W.P.No.16988/2017. In that order, it was observed that the rights of the purchaser shall be intact till O.S.No.8233/2014 is finally decided. So far defendants have not taken effective steps to expedite the proceedings in OS No.8233/2014. The above facts and circumstances and the documents referred to above show that the matter involves complicated questions of law and facts and there is a triable issue. The documents further show that at one stage orders were passed in plaintiff’s favour for conversion of the land, supply of electricity etc.

¶184

According to the defendants the shed constructed by the plaintiff situates in Sy.No.103/5A. Even the plaintiff claims that she was trying to get the trees cleared for the purpose of fencing the land. Therefore, prima facie the disputed property measuring 24 guntas is a vacant land. Therefore, until O.S.No.8233/2014 is decided, it is necessary to direct both the parties to maintain status quo .

¶185

MFA No.3839/2021

¶186

¶187

In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. The trial Court while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration all the above said orders of this Court and other material placed before it. Plaintiff has invested huge amount in the property. If the defendants taking advantage of the dismissal of plaintiff’s application for interim injunction avoiding progress in their suit, alter the nature of the property, she will be put to irreparable injury. The balance of convenience lies in her favour.

¶188

So far as the contention whether boundary prevails or survey number prevails, that is a matter of trial in O.S.No.8233/2014. It is submitted that so far the plaintiff herein has not appeared in O.S.No.8233/2014. However, she has the knowledge of the said suit. Therefore she shall appear in the said suit without expecting service of summons. Clubbing and disposal of O.S.No.8233/2014, O.S.No.4158/2017 and O.S.No.25201/2021 together avoids conflicting

¶189

MFA No.3839/2021

¶190

¶191

judgments. Direction has to be issued to the trial Court in that regard. The appeal is partly allowed.

¶192

The impugned order of the trial Court rejecting IA No.1 and allowing IA No.2 is hereby modified as follows:

¶193

i) The plaintiff and defendants are hereby directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. IA No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.25201/2021 are disposed of accordingly.

¶194

ii) O.S.No.8233/2014, O.S. No.4158/2017 and O.S.No.25201/2021 shall be clubbed together and disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

¶195

iii) Appellant shall appear in O.S.No.8233/2014 without further notice.

¶196

iv) The parties shall cooperate for disposal of the said suits. Otherwise the trial Court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the defaulting parties.

¶197

Sd/JUDGE

¶198

akc

Dr.S.Sheela Bhanumathi v. Sri.Pilla Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.S.Sheela Bhanumathi v. Sri.Pilla Reddy

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

M Mohandas Hegde Vs Suresh Nayak

M. Mohandas Hegde Vs Suresh Nayak

Smt. Gowramma Vs Sri. Chowdappa

Sri. Hombaiah Vs Smt. Rangamma

S. Shreyas Vs Smt. D.S. Brindamma

Radhamani. M. K. Vs Girish. M