High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 227 to modify impugned orders granting injunction. Court directed parties to maintain status quo pending disposal of the suit due to undisputed rival claims and pending appellate proceedings.
Directed both parties to maintain status quo with regard to the subject property until the final disposal of the suit.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7334/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SMT. SHARADA, W/O SRI. K. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 130, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, AZAD NAGAR, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU – 560 018.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SUNITHA.H.SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SRI. PRAKASH.Y, S/O LATE SRI.YERRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, 4TH CROSS, ANJANA NAGARA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDAM POST, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 091.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON 10.03.2021 IN M.A.No.56 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AND SET ASIDE
2
THE ORDER PASSED ON 24.04.2018 ON I.A. No.1 FILED IN O.S. No.683 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AND GRANT THE PETITIONER SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S. No.683/2017 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court '], has impugned the civil Court's order dated 24.04.2018 as also the order dated 10.03.2021 in M.A. No.56/2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [for short, 'the appellate Court'].
3
petitioner from interfering with the respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the immovable property, which is described as site bearing No.19, Assessment No.134, situated at Ward No.72, Kempegowda Nagara, 5th 'A' Cross, Herohalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru [the subject property]. The petitioner's appeal against this order in M.A. No.56/2018 is rejected by the appellate Court by its order dated 10.03.2021.
4
20.06.2017. The petitioner, while admitting the original ownership of this larger land, asserts that the original owner has transferred this larger land in favour of Sri.Narasimhaiah and Sri.Anjinappa who have executed a power of attorney in favour of Smt.Shanthamma in the year 2003 for the subject property after forming a residential layout in the said larger property. Smt.Shanthamma has transferred the subject property in favour of the petitioner under the sale deed dated 19.12.2003.
5
observing that the petitioner, who is unsuccessful in establishing her possession in a suit commenced by her against her vendors, cannot defeat the respondent's case for injunction. The civil Court's order in these lines is confirmed by the appellate Court.
6
into a residential layout, cannot succeed. The petitioner has challenged this finding in R.A. No.27/2014 and the finding that the petitioner is not in possession because her vendors have established that the larger land is an agricultural land, will have to be re-examined by the appellate Court in the light of the evidence on record.
7
established the prima facie case on the strength of his own assertions. The petitioner relies upon the sale deed which is executed in the year 2003 asserting certain antecedents/facts such as development of the larger land into a residential layout and sale of one of the sites in such a layout by a power of attorney on behalf of her vendor Sri.Narasimhaiah and Sri.Anjinappa. The respondent relies upon a much later sale deed, which is executed in the year 2017 by the original owner, and without disputing that the larger land is developed into a residential area.
8
respondents application is allowed only because the petitioner's suit is rejected. The respondent has, indeed, made out a prima facie case for trial by establishing that both the petitioner and the respondent have rival claims under the same owner. However, on the question of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, this Court must observe that with the rival claims to the subject property yet to be decided on merits in the present suit and the petitioner's earlier suit in O.S. No.208/2008, pending in appeal, the parties must be directed to maintain status quo .
queried, responds that the subject property is still a vacant site but for a small construction with amenities such as power and water supply. This Court, must therefore, interfere with the impugned orders and modify them to direct both the petitioner and respondent to maintain status quo without changing the
9
nature of the subject property until the final disposal of the suit.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly, directing both the petitioner and the respondent to maintain status quo with regard to the subject property until the final disposal of the suit.
SD/- JUDGE
RK/Ct: SN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order granting injunction should be modified to maintain status quo when rival claims are pending.
Whether the appellate court erred in not examining the prima facie case independently of the dismissed predecessor suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Sharada
Sri. Prakash.Y
B. M. Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
