Dismissed

Sri Muni Reddy v. Smt Sarojamma

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2021MFA/6983/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the trial Court's order deferring interim injunction applications to be considered along with the main suit. The bench held that no perversity existed as the plaintiffs had no prima facie case after withdrawing a prior appeal and had delayed disposal contrary to court directions. Pending applications were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. Pending interim applications before the trial court are disposed of.

Sri Muni Reddy Vs Smt Sarojamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

M.F.A.No.6983/2019

¶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.6983/2019 (CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MUNI REDDY

¶10

S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.25, 1^ST CROSS BHUVANAPPA LAYOUT TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD D.R.C.POST, BANGALORE – 560 029

¶11

SRI S.M.JEEYANNA REDDY

¶12

SINCE DECEASED

¶13

REP. BY HIS LRS 2 TO 4

¶14

SMT.GEETHA JEEYANNA REDDY W/O OF LATE S.M.JEEYANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶15

SMT.J.JAYANTHI REDDY D/O LATE S.M.JEEYANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶16

SRI J.MITHESH KUMAR S/O LATE S.M.JEEYANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶17

A2 TO A4 ARE R/AT NO.14, 3^RD A CROSS 21^ST MAIN, BTM LAYOUT 1 PHASE

¶18

II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 076 …APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI B SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

M.F.A.No.6983/2019

AND:

SMT.SAROJAMMA W/O LATE S.M.CHANDRAPPA MAJOR R/AT NO.3, 1^ST MAIN ROAD SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C.POST BANGALORE – 560 029 2. SRI LOKANATH ALIAS LOKANATH REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA MAJOR R/AT NO.39, 2^ND CROSS KAVERI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT DRC POST, BANGALORE – 560 029 3. SMT.VIDYAVATHY A SHETTY W/O SRI ASHOK SHETTY MAJOR R/AT NO.164/D, II MAIN ROAD SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE – 560 020 4. SRI K.N.RAO S/O LATE K.V.RAO MAJOR R/AT NO.2, LAKE VIEW DEFENCE COLONY, JALAHALLI WEST BANGALORE – 560 015 N.H.SHIVAMURTHY S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LR R.5

¶24

SRI.A.KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.96, NAGENAHALLI SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 560 064

¶25

S.C.DASUARATHA S/O LATE S.M.CHANDRAPPA

¶26

M.F.A.No.6983/2019

¶27

¶28

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT SITE NO.27 7^TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA BANGALORE – 560 068

¶29

SRI S.C.THRIBHUVANESH S/O OF LATE S.M.CHANDRAPPA AGED BOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 1^ST MAIN ROAD SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C. POST BANGALORE – 560 029

¶30

S.C.SHASHIKALA D/O LATE S.M.CHANDRAPPA W/O SRI BABU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 1^ST MAIN ROAD SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C. POST BANGALORE – 560 029

¶31

M/S.NCC URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., A SUBSIDIARY OF M/S.NCC LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S.NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED AND HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.17/4, RAMANAMAHARSHI ROAD SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.V.MURALI KRISHNAM RAJU

¶32

SMT.PADMAMMA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AND W/O NARAYANASWAMY MAJOR R/AT KUNDANA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562 110 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶33

SMT.JAYAMMA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AND W/O RAMAIAH MAJOR R/AT HESARAGHATTA

¶34

M.F.A.No.6983/2019

¶35

¶36

YELAHANKA HOBLI - 560 088 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶37

SMT.N.H.MANIKYYAMMA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AND W/O OF LATE MANJUNATHA MAJOR R/AT NO.68, “ASHIRWAD” 3^RD MAIN, NEAR MUNESWARASWAMY TEMPLE SOMESWARANAGARA CHIKKABOMMASANDRA GKVK POST, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE – 560 065

¶38

SMT.S.SHASHIKALA W/O N.H.SHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶39

KUMARI DEEPA S MURTHY D/O LATE N.H.SHIVAMURTHY MAJOR

¶40

R13 AND R14 ARE R/AT NO.56, KAILAASA TEACHERS COLONY NAGARABHAVI YESHAVANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE – 560 072 …RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI C S PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R9 & R3)

¶42

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104 READ WITH UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2019 PASSED BY THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.7384/2007 ON IA NO.18.

¶43

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

M.F.A.No.6983/2019

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

Aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by XLIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7384/2007 have preferred the above appeal.

¶49

The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their ranks before the trial Court.

¶50

The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.7384/2007 against the defendants for declaration that they are entitled to 1/4^th share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property, sale deed dated 28.11.1994 executed by defendant Nos.5 and 6 in favour of defendant No.3 does not bind them, declaration that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7300/1995 and O.S.No.7271/1999 passed by Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru do not bind them, declaration that the sale deed dated 29.06.2011 in respect of 2 acres in item No.1 of suit schedule property

¶51

M.F.A.No.6983/2019

¶52

¶53

and the joint development agreement between defendant No.3 and defendant No.10 do not bind them and for mesne profit.

¶54

The plaintiffs claimed that their father

¶55

purchased the suit property from one Hanumanthappa in the year 1970 from the joint family income. They also claim that Hanumanthappa sold the property to defendant No.3, therefore the sale in favour of defendant No.3 was void.

¶56

The defendants contested the suit denying the identity of the property and claim of the plaintiffs. In the suit the plaintiffs initially filed IA Nos.1 to 3 seeking injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 3 to restrain them from changing the nature of property or alienating the property etc.

¶57

The trial Court by the order dated 03.12.2007

¶58

rejected those applications categorically recording the finding that the plaintiffs have no prima-facie case, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants

¶59

M.F.A.No.6983/2019

¶60

¶61

and if injunction is granted, the defendants will be put to irreparable injury.

¶62

The plaintiffs challenged that order before this Court in MFA No.1149/2008 (CPC). The order dated 16.06.2009 in MFA No.1149/2008 shows that the Counsel for the plaintiffs, after arguing the matter for sometime withdrew the appeal. The order further shows that on his submission, this Court disposed of the appeal issuing directions to the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the suit without being influenced by the observation made during the course of the order on I.A.Nos.1 to 3.

¶63

Such being the fact, when the case was posted before the trial Court for evidence of PW.1, the plaintiffs again filed I.A.Nos.16 to 19 seeking temporary injunction against defendant Nos.3 and 10 to restrain them from constructing on the property and alienating the property.

¶64

The trial Court by the impugned order deferred the said applications for hearing along with the

¶65

M.F.A.No.6983/2019

¶66

¶67

main suit. The trial Court holds that the original suit is of the year 2007 and similar applications were already rejected considering merits. The trial Court also holds that after lapse of 12 years, when the matter is posted for evidence of PW.1 plaintiffs have again come up with the same applications, therefore the applications shall be considered along with the main matter.

¶68

Aggrieved by the said order, the above appeal is filed. Now the question before this Court is whether the trial Court committed any perversity or arbitrariness in deferring IA Nos.16 to 19 for consideration along with the main suit.

¶69

The facts narrated above and which are not in dispute show that the trial Court had rejected similar application as long back as in the year 2007. By withdrawal of the appeal filed against that order, the finding with regard to prima-facie case held against the plaintiffs stood concluded.

¶70

M.F.A.No.6983/2019

¶71

¶72

13. When the plaintiffs have no prima-facie case,

¶73

the question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable injury does not arise. Moreover, there was direction by this Court to the trial Court that too at the instance of the plaintiffs themselves to dispose of the matter as expeditiously. If the plaintiffs go on repeating such applications, the trial Court goes on considering them, it would have amounted to non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court.

¶74

Under the circumstances, this Court does not

¶75

find any perversity or arbitrariness or illegality in the trial Court deferring the applications for consideration along with the main matter.

¶76

When a person seeks equitable relief, the conduct of the person seeking such relief also matters. The facts narrated above show that having secured directions from this Court for early disposal of the suit about 13 years, the plaintiffs have not cooperated for disposal of the matter. On that count also, this appeal deserves no merit.

¶77

M.F.A.No.6983/2019

¶78

¶79

Sri Padmanabha.V.Mahale, learned Senior

¶80

Counsel appearing for Sri B.Sharath Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellants on record submits that the plaintiffs’ only apprehension is that if at all they succeed and the properties are sold, that may lead to multiplicity of the proceedings and unnecessary complications.

¶81

In view of Section 52 of the Transfer of

¶82

Property Act, 1881, any alienation effected during pendency of the suit are subject to the result of the suit and the decree that may be passed binds the purchasers pending lis.

¶83

With such observation, this appeal is dismissed.

¶84

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs

¶85

stood disposed of.

¶86

KSR

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Muni Reddy v. Smt Sarojamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muni Reddy v. Smt Sarojamma

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. C. Srinivasa Vs Sri. M. Manjunath

S Nagarajan Vs Smt Sanjeevamma

Smt N Susheela Vs Smt Geetha v