Partly allowed

Sri. Chinnappa v. Sri. Krishnappa

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2022MFA/5122/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In MFA 5122 of 2022, the High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal in part against an interim order. The Court set aside the previous injunction, directed parties to maintain status quo, and ordered the trial court to expedite the suit disposal within one year.

What did the court decide?

Impugned interim orders set aside; status quo maintained; trial court directed to expedite suit disposal within one year.

Sri. Chinnappa Vs Sri. Krishnappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 5122 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5122 OF 2022 (CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. CHINNAPPA, S/O. LATE KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

[BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND:

¶9

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O. LATE KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶10

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D

¶11

Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶12

ALSO AT SONNAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, HEGGADIHALLI POST, TUBUGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶13

SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶14

ALSO AT SONNAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, HEGGADIHALLI POST, TUBUGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 5122 of 2022

¶17

SRI. NAGARAJ. K, S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶18

ALSO AT SONNAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, HEGGADIHALLI POST, TUBUGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶19

SMT. AKKAYYAMMA, W/O. LATE CHIKKABYRAPPA, D/O. LATE KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SAHUKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVENAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

SMT. OBAMMA, D/O. LATE KADIRAPPA, W/O. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/ AT KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

[BY SRI. R.BALAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (PH)]

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.10.06.2022 PASSED ON IA NOs.3 AND 4 IN O.S.NO.300/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR, REJECTING IA NO.3 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, ALLOWING IA NO.4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 5122 of 2022

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Challenging impugned order dated 10.06.2022 passed by

¶29

Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Dodaballapur, in O.S.no.300/2018 on IAs. no.3 and 4 filed under Order XXXIX

¶30

Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC respectively, this appeal is filed.

¶31

Appellant herein was plaintiff, while respondents no.1 to 5 herein were defendants in original suit. They will be referred to as such herein.

¶32

O.S.No.300/2018 was filed by plaintiff seeking for judgment and decree by allotting half share in suit properties by meets and bounds and declare gift deed dated 13.11.2017 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.3 in respect of suit schedule item no.5 as not binding on plaintiff and for mesne profits etc.

¶33

In said suit I.A.no.3 was filed by plaintiff for temporary injunction restraining defendants no.1 to 3 from alienating or encumbering etc., suit properties. Considering same, trial Court had granted ex-parte ad interim order of injunction.

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 5122 of 2022

¶36

Defendants entered appearance, and filed written

¶37

statement and objections. They also filed I.A.no.4 for vacating interim order .

¶38

Considering applications, trial Court passed

¶39

impugned order rejecting I.A.no.3 and allowing I.A.no.4.

¶40

Aggrieved by same, plaintiff is in appeal.

¶41

Sri. Sunil S Rao, learned counsel for appellant submitted that impugned order is opposed to recognized principles of law regarding injunctions. It was further submitted that there was no proper consideration of pleadings and documents produced by plaintiff.

¶42

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant would be satisfied, if this Court modifies injunction directing parties to maintain status quo existing as on today and direct trial Court for expedite disposal of suit.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondents though did not seriously oppose above submission, but submitted that time limit be fixed for disposal of suit.

¶44

In view of above submission, adverting to merits of appeal would not be necessary.

¶45

¶46

MFA No. 5122 of 2022

¶47

Appeal is allowed in part. Interim order passed on IAs no. 3 and 4 is set aside. Parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding suit schedule property existing as on today during pendency of suit.

¶48

Both parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of appeal.

¶49

Trial Court is directed to expedite suit in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments and dispose of suit without being influenced by any of observations made in its order dated 10.06.2022, as far as possible within one year from date of order.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Psg*

Sri. Chinnappa v. Sri. Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chinnappa v. Sri. Krishnappa

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

K.Sainath Reddy Vs Jayalakshmi

Smt P G Deepthi Vs a S Bheemappa

Sri. K Balasubramani Vs Sri. Bheemashen Kamble

Smt Lakshmidevi Vs Gundappa

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Sahasralingeshwara Enterprises

India Today News Vs Sri. H. Anandappa