Disposed

V Krishnamurthy v. H v Nagaraj

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2022MFA/4925/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed against the order declining temporary injunction. pending disposal of the underlying suit, the court directed both parties to maintain status quo of the property without raising new construction or alterations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to maintain status quo of the property by both parties; prohibition on raising construction or altering existing shed till disposal of the suit.

V Krishnamurthy Vs H v Nagaraj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

MFA NO.4925 OF 2021(CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

V.Krishnamurthy, Aged about 42 years, S/o Late Venkateshappa, R/at No.46, Lakshmidevi Nilaya, Jnanajyothi Nagar, Ullal Main Road, Bengaluru-560056.

¶7

…Appellant

¶8

(By Sri C.M.Nagabushana, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

H.V.Nagaraj, Aged about 52 years, S/o Veeranna, R/at No.3678, 6^th Cross, Subramanya Nagar, II Stage, Bengaluru-560040.

¶11

…Respondent

¶12

(By Sri K.Nagendra Kumar, Advocate)

¶13

This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, 1908 against the order dated 23.09.2021 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.3795/2021 on the file of the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-59), dismissing I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶14

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

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Heard Sri C.M.Nagabushana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Nagendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶18

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2021 passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH59, Bengaluru City, dismissing the plaintiff’s application I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶19

In a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff in respect of property bearing No. 36/2, old katha No.6, new katha No.227/36/2/6 of Malathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru-560 056, the plaintiff made an application, I.A.1 for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The plaintiff’s case is that his father

¶20

:: 3 ::

¶21

Venkateshappa executed a gift deed in his favour on 5.12.2018 in respect of the suit property and since then he is in possession of the same. He has stated that he obtained the katha in his name from BBMP and constructed three small houses and then obtained power supply from BESCOM. According to the plaintiff, defendant is a total stranger and has no right, title or interest over the suit property.

¶22

On the other hand, the defendant contends that on 20.10.2004, the plaintiff’s father Venkateshappa and Venkateshappa’s brothers sold under a registered sale deed four sites bearing No. 130, 131, 132 and 133 formed in Sy. No. 36/2 of Malathahalli Village to one H.Vasudev. This sale deed was executed by one Hombanna in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the vendors. Thereafter, on 21.11.2009, H.Vasudev appointed Jinendra Prasad as his Power of

¶23

:: 4 ::

¶24

Attorney in respect of the suit property and the said Jinendra Prasad, in the capacity of power of attorney holder entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant. Since the sale deed was not executed, defendant had to file a suit for specific performance in O.S.4659/2014 against H.Vasudev. In the said suit, settlement was arrived at. According to the said settlement, Jinendra Prasad being the general power of attorney of H.Vasudev executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant on 11.11.2014. Thus he claims to be the absolute owner of the suit property.

¶25

If the documents produced by the plaintiff and the defendant are considered, it appears that gift deed in favour of the plaintiff came into existence in the year 2008 after the sale deed in favour of H.Vasudev was executed on 20.10.2004. In this view, the validity of the gift deed requires examination. However, except producing the sale

¶26

:: 5 ::

¶27

deed dated 11.11.2004, the defendant has not produced any document in support of his case that he has been in possession of the suit property having become the owner. On the other hand, the plaintiff has produced supplementary documents such as katha certificate and power supply document to show that he is in possession.

¶28

Now at this juncture, the counsel for the appellant Sri C.M.Nagabushana submits that since the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, his possessory interest may be protected and the plaintiff undertakes that he will not put up any construction in the suit property till the disposal of the suit on merits. In this view, this appeal is disposed of with the following direction : -

¶29

(i) The status of the property consisting of one shed and vacant land shall be maintained by both the parties till disposal of the suit. No party is

¶30

:: 6 ::

¶31

permitted to raise any construction or alter the shed which is already in

¶32

existence.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

ckl/-

V Krishnamurthy v. H v Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Krishnamurthy v. H v Nagaraj

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

Mr Manjunatha S Vs Mr R P M Subramanyam

Mr Ashfaq Ahmed Vs Mrs Iqbalunnisa Begum