Allowed

Sri. Gadenahalli Ramakrishnappa v. Sri. Anil Kumar

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2021WP/38891/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the appellate court's order revoking the trial court's status quo in a suit for declaration of right of way. The Court directed the maintenance of the existing status quo and expeditious disposal of the suit to prevent hardship to the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the appellate court quashing the status quo was quashed; status quo was restored; suit disposal timeline directed.

Sri. Gadenahalli Ramakrishnappa Vs Sri. Anil Kumar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.38891/2016 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GADENAHALLI RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. KALAPPA, R/AT MUTHUGADAHALLI, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 157.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI.S.D.N PRASAD, ADVOCATE]

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . SRI. ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O. LATE CHIKKA ANJINAPPA

¶13

2 . SMT. ARPITA M.C. AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O. LATE CHIKKA ANJINAPPA

¶14

3 . SRI. PRAMOD M.C. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS S/O. LATE CHIKKA ANJINAPPA

¶15

ALL ARE RESIDING AT:MUTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 157

¶16

4 . SRI. C. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

S/O CHANNAPPA R/AT-MUTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 157

¶19

4(a). SMT.ANJINAMMA W/O LATE C RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶20

4(b). SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE C RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶21

4(c). SRI.M.R.GOVINDARAJ S/O LATE C RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶22

4(d). SRI.M.R.SRINIVAS MURTHY S/O LATE C RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶23

4(e). SRI.M.R.CHANNEGOWDA S/O LATE C RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶24

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, DODDAJALA POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 157

¶25

5 . SRI. M.P. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT-MUTTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 157.

¶26

... RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.PRASHANTH P.N. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.25.4.2016, IN M.A.NO.49/2012 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE

¶29

¶30

COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., AT DEVANAHALLI, VIDE ANNEX-A AND THEREBY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF STATUS QUO DTD.1.6.2009 GRANTED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE [JR.DIV] AND JMFC, AT DEVANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.126/2003 VIDE ANNEXM AND ETC.,

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This writ petition is filed challenging the Order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli (henceforth referred to as Appellate Court) in M.A. No.49/2012, by which the Appellate Court modified the order of status-quo granted by the Trial Court in O.S.No.314/2011.

¶34

The suit in O.S.No.314/2011 was filed for declaration that the plaintiff had a right of way over the 'B' schedule property to reach the 'A' schedule property.

¶35

The trial Court passed an order directing the parties to maintain status-quo in terms of the order dated 06.06.2012. This order was challenged by the defendant No.1 before the Appellate Court in M.A. No.49/2012. The

¶36

¶37

Appellate Court relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.N.KAVERAMMA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

¶38

[ILR 2010 KAR 3411] and held that granting an order of status-quo would result in confusion unless the status as on that date is defined properly. The Appellate Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of status-quo . It is this order, which is challenged in the present Writ Petition.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the 'A' schedule

¶40

property is fully developed. While the plaintiff claims that the 'B' schedule property is access to the 'A' schedule property, the defendants contend that it belongs to them and that the plaintiff is not entitled to ingress and egress to the 'A' schedule property from the 'B' schedule property. Learned counsel for the defendants submit that he has constructed house and that he is living therein and that he intends to enclose the property including 'B' schedule

¶41

¶42

property so as to avoid pests/rodents and reptiles entering into his property.

¶43

Having regard to the fact that suit is filed for declaration of an easementary right and the Trial Court has directed the parties to maintain status-quo as it existed on the date of the suit and the said order continued from 2011 till the year 2016, any change more particularly when the defendants intend to enclose the 'B' schedule property, would likely result in hardship to the plaintiff. Hence, it is appropriate that the parties are directed to go on with the suit and in the meanwhile, the status-quo of the property as it exists today shall be maintained between the petitioner and the respondents. It is needless to mention that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants shall be entitled to be put up any construction whatsoever over or around the 'B' schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid and having regard to the fact that the suit is pending since the year 2011, it is

¶45

¶46

appropriate to direct trial Court to frame issues as expeditiously as possible at any rate not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶47

The Trial Court shall, thereafter, examine the parties within next three months and thereafter, dispose of the suit itself within a period of six months from the date of conclusion of the evidence of the parties.

¶48

The Writ Petition stands disposed off on the above terms.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

NBM

Sri. Gadenahalli Ramakrishnappa v. Sri. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gadenahalli Ramakrishnappa v. Sri. Anil Kumar

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

J C Badappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Narendra Kumar Vs Y Samuel

K. Kenganna Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Munivenkatamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

K Ravi S/O Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Quduse Vs Babu Reddy