Disposed

Mr Manjunatha S v. Mr R P M Subramanyam

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2022MFA/3644/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a revision against rejection of a temporary injunction application. The court found the trial court erred by focusing on title instead of possession. Since parties agreed to keep the property vacant, no remand was ordered. Trial court directed to give suit early disposal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with direction to maintain vacant possession of suit property until disposal on merits.

Mr Manjunatha S Vs Mr R P M Subramanyam — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

MFA NO.3644 OF 2021 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mr. Manjunatha S., S/o Late N.Shivappa Naik, Aged about 53 years, R/at 306, Krishna Geetha Apartments, Basava Samithi Layout, Vidhyaranyapura, Bengaluru-560097.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri Chandranath Ariga K., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Mr. R.P.M.Subramanyam, S/o R.P.Muniswamappa, Aged about 66 years, No.45, 19^th Main,

¶12

12^th Cross, J.P.Nagar,

¶13

2^nd Phase, Bengaluru-560078.

¶14

Mr. Deepak B.K., S/o Late Krishnamurthy B.G., Aged about 36 years, No.529, 10^th Cross, 13^th Main, Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru-560017.

¶15

…Respondents

¶16

(By Sri R.Shyama, Advocate for R1; R2 - served)

¶17

:: 2 ::

¶18

This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC 1908, against the order dated 12.03.2021 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.3811/2019 on the file of the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-6), rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶19

This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.3811/2019 on the file of XXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-6, Bengaluru. The plaintiff’s suit is for permanent injunction in respect of property bearing site No.64, Khata No.364, earlier Doddabettahalli Village Panchayat, earlier part of Sy.No.20, Chikkabettahalli village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru North Taluk and now situated within the limits of BBMP. The plaintiff claims to have purchased this property from one M/s. Venkadari Estates and Developers Pvt., Ltd. It is stated that the sale deed in his favour was executed and registered on 25.3.2010. He claims

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

to have obtained khata to his name and paid taxes

¶24

regularly. He complains of illegal interference by the defendants.

¶25

On the other hand, the first defendant

¶26

contended that 9 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli Village belonged to one Abdul Karim Sab. He entered into an agreement of sale with M/s The Agarbatti Workers House Building Co-operative Society. One Reddappachetty was the President of the Society. On 20.05.1989, Abdul Karim Sab executed power

¶27

of attorney in favour of Reddappachetty. Then on 9.12.1991, Abdul Karim Sab and his family members executed another agreement of sale in favour of the Society and not in favour of Reddappachetty personally. Before that Abdul Karim Sab had obtained conversion of the land from agricultural to residential, purposes. After the death of Abdul Karim Sab, his heirs and

¶28

:: 4 ::

¶29

brothers succeeded to the ownership of entire Sy.No.20. They never sold the property to Reddappachetty. On 9.1.1996, the said Society and Reddappachetty filed the suit O.S.No.243/1996 seeking injunction and it was

¶30

dismissed for default on 18.2.1997. Then the Society and Reddappachetty filed miscellaneous petition seeking restoration of the suit and it was also dismissed. Therefore the heirs of Abdul Karim

¶31

Sab and his brothers jointly sold entire land in Sy.No.20 to one M.Mohan Raju by executing three sale deeds. M. Mohan Raju having thus become the owner of the land, took over possession, and then formed the layout and sold one such site to the defendant. Thus the first defendant contended that the documents that the plaintiff relied upon are not at all correct and are bogus. Reddappachetty was never the owner of the property. The land did not belong to M/s.Venkadari Estates Developers Pvt. Ltd.

¶32

:: 5 ::

¶33

I have heard Sri. Chandranath Ariga K.,

¶34

counsel for the appellant and Sri. R. Shyama, counsel for respondent no.1.

¶35

If the impugned order is perused, it

¶36

appears that the trial court has proceeded to trace the title of the plaintiff and also of the defendant. It has not applied its mind to ascertain as to who was in possession of the suit property on the date of suit. In a suit for injunction, possession plays an important role rather than title. Though it is not disputed that the suit property is surrounded by a compound wall, the person who constructed the compound wall is disputed. This is a fit case to be remanded for disposal of application for temporary injunction afresh, but the appellant and the respondents have agreed for maintaining vacant nature of the property till disposal of the suit. Therefore appeal is disposed of with a direction to the plaintiff as also the

¶37

:: 6 ::

¶38

defendants to maintain vacant nature of the suit property till the suit is disposed of on merits by the trial court.

¶39

The trial court may consider for early disposal

¶40

of the suit subject to cooperation by the parties.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Mr Manjunatha S v. Mr R P M Subramanyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Manjunatha S v. Mr R P M Subramanyam

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

Shri Guruswamy Vs Shri Puttasubbappa

Shivashankara Reddy N Vs R Srikanth

Sri T R Narendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Chytra Arun Kumar Vs the Chief Commissioner

V Krishnamurthy Vs H v Nagaraj

Mr Ashfaq Ahmed Vs Mrs Iqbalunnisa Begum