Partly allowed

Smt K M Manjula v. Smt K M Prabhamani

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022MFA/344/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of an appeal against a sentence of civil imprisonment imposed for violating an interim injunction order. The court stayed the execution of the imprisonment on terms, requiring the appellant to deposit a specified sum within eight weeks and ensuring the property transfer does not prejudice other respondents' rights.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; sentence against second appellant kept in abeyance upon deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- within eight weeks.

Smt K M Manjula Vs Smt K M Prabhamani — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.344/2020 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT K M MANJULA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE RAMESH R/AT NO.102 GROUND FLOOR SUVARNA NILAYA LIC BHIMA JYOTHI COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079

¶9

2 . SMT K M SARALA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O SRI V R SHAMGHU R/O 2ND CROSS 2ND MAIN SRINAGARA (BEHIND SRIRAJ THEATRE) KYATASANDRA TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶10

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.102 GROUND FLOOR SUVARNA NILAYA LIC BHIMA JYOTHI COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶11

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . SMT K M PRABHAMANI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O SHIVASHANKAR D/O K MADAPPA R/AT NO.553/C 1 A CROSS, III STAGE IV BLOCK BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶15

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.28 14TH MAIN VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶16

2 . SMT K M THARA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O S SHIVAPRASAD D/O LATE K MADAPPA R/AT NO.46 SHIVAKRUPA KIRLOSKAR COLONY 2ND MAIN BASAVESHWAANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶17

3 . MR TANGO PROPRIETOR TANGO JUICE CENTER NO.102/1 GROUND FLOOR SUVARNA NILAYA SIDDAIAH POORANIK ROAD, LIC COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶18

4 . SRI KUPPARAM PROPRIETOR

¶19

¶20

M/S POOJA ENTERPRISES R/AT NO.102 AND 3 GROUND FLOOR SUVARNA NILAYA LIC BHIMA JYOTHI COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶21

5 . M R MAHESH NAIK PROPRIETOR M/S RAJADHANI TOURS AND TRAVELS AND RAJADHANI REAL ESTATE R/AT NO.102 AND 3 GROUND FLOOR SUVARNA NILAYA LIC BHIMA JYOTHI COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶22

6 . MR AND MRS RAMACHANDRA PROPRIETOR MANJUNATHA FLOOR NO.102/5 SUVARNA NILAYA LIC BHIMA JYOTHI COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶23

7 . MR MARUTHI PROPRIETOR M/S ANNAPOORNESHWARI COFFEE CENTRE R/AT NO.102/6 GROUND FLOOR SUVARNA NILAYA LIC BHIMA JYOTHI COLONY BASAVESHWAANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶24

8 . DR SHIVANANDA SETTY PROPRIETOR

¶25

¶26

M/S WEALTH FORUM FIRST FLOOR NO.102/7 (SOUTHERN SIDE) SUVARNA NILAYA LIC BHIMA JYOTHI COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶27

9 . SRI M S MANI AND SMT MANI MEGHALAI FIRST FLOOR NO.102 SUVARNA NILAYA LIC BHIMA JYOTHI COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU-560 079

¶28

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; APPEAL AS AGAINST R3 TO R9 STANDS DISMISSED)

¶29

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.12 IN OS.NO.6571/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-38) , BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.12 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2A R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶30

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

- 5 -

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The dispute in O.S.No.6571/2007 on the file of the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (for short, ' the civil Court ') is amongst the sisters. This suit is for declaration, for partition and other consequential relief. The civil Court by the impugned order dated 09.12.2019 has directed the second appellant (the second defendant), who asserts rights under certain registered documents, including a certain Last Will and Testament, to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of two [2] months for disobedience of its order dated 14.02.2008 restraining the appellants and the other defendants from alienating two [2] immovable properties that are subject matter of the suit.

¶34

Sri. M.T.Nanaiah, the learned Senior counsel for

¶35

the appellants, submits that the appellants cannot dispute that during currency of the order dated 14.02.2008, the

¶36

- 6 -

¶37

second appellant has mortgaged suit schedule 'A' property and alienated the suit schedule 'B' property, but they can place on record mitigating circumstances. In support of this submission, he submits that presently the mortgage as against the schedule 'A' property is discharged and this property is free of all encumbrances, and the appellants will not enter into further transactions for this property.

¶38

Insofar as the schedule 'B' property, Sri. M.T. Nanaiah submits that the second appellant has transferred this property for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,60,000/- and the appellants, despite their best efforts,

¶39

are unable to prevail upon the purchaser to execute necessary conveyance/transfer Deed. The second appellant is a widow and she has entered into aforesaid transactions only to perform the marriage of her daughter. The second appellant is willing to deposit 50% of the consideration received by her as consideration for executing the document in favour of a third party purchaser for the

¶40

- 7 -

¶41

schedule 'B' property. If the mitigating circumstances are considered, this Court could opine that the appellants have not deliberately violated the interim orders.

¶42

Sri. S.B.Mukkannappa, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs - the respondents, submits that the civil Court has considered these very circumstances in concluding that there is deliberate violation of the interim order dated 14.02.2008. He submits that the order of temporary injunction is granted after hearing even the appellants. If this Court were to modify the impugned order, it would encourage unscrupulous litigants to violate Court orders with impunity and plead mitigating circumstances as a fait accompli and this would be detrimental to the rule of law. Sri. S.B.Mukkannappa is very categorical that the schedule 'B' property is transacted for a value much higher than amount of Rs.3,60,000/- mentioned in the affidavit and his instructions are that this property would be worth more than Rs.40,00,000/-.

¶43

- 8 -

¶44

Indeed, there could be no quarrel with the

¶45

anxiety canvassed by Sri. S.B.Mukkannappa and it would be imperative in law for every litigant and the concerned to abide by the orders of the Court, and the Courts must ensure obedience to the orders for the rule of law to prevail. Impunity shall always be beyond judicial countenance. However, it is also salient that justice, especially when a citizen's personal right would be denied by imprisonment, must be tempered with mercy when certain mitigating circumstances are brought out and all reasonable opportunity extended.

¶46

The crucial circumstance that is now brought on record is the second appellant's willingness to deposit substantial part of the consideration received by her on execution of the sale deed in favour of a third party purchaser. This would be in addition to the undisputed fact that the second appellant is a widow and she has performed the wedding of her daughter in the immediate

¶47

¶48

period of execution of the sale deed. The mortgage of the schedule 'A' property is redeemed. These circumstances must have their full play and the second appellant could be put on terms to ensure that the other parties to the proceedings are not prejudiced by the transfer. The second appellant must have another opportunity before she is compelled to undergo civil imprisonment. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appeal must be disposed of deferring the sentence against the second respondent to undergo civil imprisonment on terms observing that if she complies she shall not undergo civil imprisonment as ordered by the civil Court.

¶49

The suit is of the year 2007 and this Court has directed civil Courts to take measures to identify long pending matters and dispose of them in an expeditious manner. The civil Court will therefore have to identify the present suit as a long pending matter and dispose of the same in an expeditious manner and the parties must co-

¶50

10 -

¶51

operate and assist with the civil Court in such disposal. If the parties fail, the civil Court must exercise its discretion to ensure that the parties co-operate.

¶52

Hence, the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The appeal is disposed of keeping in abeyance the sentence imposed on the second appellant to undergo imprisonment for a period of eight [8] weeks extending an opportunity to comply with the following conditions:

¶55

a. The second appellant shall deposit a sum of

¶56

Rs.10,00,000/- within a period of eight [8] weeks from today and the second appellant shall not be entitled to seek any extension of time even on the ground that the certified copy of this order was not immediately available. If

¶57

11 -

¶58

the second appellant deposits this amount, she shall not undergo civil imprisonment;

¶59

b. The second appellant shall be liable to answer every equity in favour of the other respondents in the event they establish in the course of trial that the second appellant has dealt with the suit schedule 'B' property for a value that would entitle them to a share more than Rs.10,00,000/- that shall be deposited;

¶60

c. The respondents' rights to seek partition of the suit schedule 'B' property by metes and bounds if equities are not worked out as aforesaid, shall not be prejudiced by this order.

¶61

d. The civil Court shall dispose of the suit within an outer limit of six [6] from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and if the parties do not co-operate, the civil Court shall

¶62

12 -

¶63

take every measure in its discretion for expeditious, including imposing exemplary cost.

¶64

SD/JUDGE

¶65

Smt K M Manjula v. Smt K M Prabhamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K M Manjula v. Smt K M Prabhamani

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 Hemavathi Vs M/S Megacity(Bengaluru) Developers and Builders

Divyajothi Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs the Deputy Registrar

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Venkatesh

Smt D K Vinoda Kumari Vs Shri K Venkatesh

The Deputy Director, Vs M/S Republic Saw Mill

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Tarun Kumar Koduri