Dismissed

Sri. S. K. Mallikarjun v. Mr. Rajanna

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2022MFA/6599/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed this appeal filed by a plaintiff challenging a trial court order rejecting a temporary injunction application. The lower court held the underlying suit challenging an ancient sale deed was time-barred, making disposition of the injunction application unsuitable.

What did the court decide?

Appellant's appeal dismissed; appeal against dismissal of temporary injunction refused.

Sri. S. K. Mallikarjun Vs Mr. Rajanna — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

MFA NO.6599 OF 2019(CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Sri S K Mallikarjun, S/o S.M.Krishnappa, Aged about 47 years, Residing at Sitakempanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk-560089.

¶7

…Appellant

¶8

(By Smt Vidya Selvamony, Advocate for Sri Rakshith K.N., Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr. Rajanna, S/o Gourayya, Aged about 42 years, Residing at House No.147, 14^th Cross, Maruthi Nagar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560064.

¶11

…Respondent

¶12

(By Sri Narayan Mayyar, Advocate for Sri S.R.Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate)

¶13

This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 30.07.2019 passed on

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.773/2017 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, dismissing I.A. filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC.

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff

¶19

aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in O.S.No.773/2017 on an application, I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

¶20

Heard Smt. Vidya Selvamony, learned

¶21

counsel for the appellant and Sri. Narayan Mayyar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit for declaration that sale deed dated 1.7.1943 is null and void, and not binding on him and consequential relief of permanent injunction to

¶23

:: 3 ::

¶24

restrain the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, which is described as 2 Acres 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.12/3 of Seetakempanahalli village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.

¶25

It is the case of the plaintiff that his grandfather viz., Munikempaiah purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 6.4.1943. Thereafter he got the revenue records mutated to his name and held its possession. After the death of Munikempaiah, his wife Lakshmamma and paternal aunt Munihanumakka and the plaintiff’s father succeeded to the said property and they divided the same among themselves through a registered partition deed dated 27.11.2004. The suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father Krishnappa. During the life time of the father, the property was divided among the plaintiff, his

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

father and the brother on 30.07.2007 and thus the

¶28

suit property fell to his share. There also came into existence the confirmation deed dated 7.2.2015. It is stated that the defendant has no manner of right and title over the suit property and yet he tried to remove the standing eucalyptus trees. The defendant did not stop interference in spite of resistance by the plaintiff and therefore suit came to be filed.

¶29

The defendant contended that

¶30

Munikempaiah purchased 2 acres 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.12 of Seetakempanahalli village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk under registered sale deed 6.4.1943, but on 1.7.1943, Munikempaiah sold an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas out of 2 acres 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.12 in favour of Nanjappa, son of Gouraiah. Thus Nanjappa became the owner of 1 acre 29 guntas and held its possession till his death. After the

¶31

:: 5 ::

¶32

death of Nanjappa, his son Gouraiah succeeded to 1 acre 29 guntas of land. Gouraiah died on 20.8.1966. The defendant succeeded to the property being son of Gouraiah. He contended that he is in peaceful of possession of 1 acre 29 guntas and therefore the plaintiff has no manner of right or title over this extent of land. He further contended that the plaintiff has challenged the sale deed dated 1.7.1943 and therefore the suit is highly time barred.

¶33

Perusal of the impugned order shows that despite the sale in favour of Nanjappa on 1.7.1943, the revenue records continued in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore the defendant approached the Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal. The said appeal came to be allowed and thus the name of the defendant came to be entered in the revenue records. Probably this

¶34

:: 6 ::

¶35

might have prompted the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and injunction.

¶36

I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. The trial court has properly exercised discretion by going through all the documents produced before it. Though it is not in dispute that the plaintiff’s grandfather was the erstwhile owner of the entire extent of land in Sy.No.12, according to the defendant, the plaintiff’s grandfather sold a part of land on 1.7.1943 in favour of one Nanjappa, through whom the defendant traces his title. Moreover, the plaintiff is assailing the sale deed dated 1.7.1943 by filing a suit in the year 2017. In this view, question of limitation definitely emerges for consideration. Apparently, suit appears to be time barred. I do not think that the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction deserved to be considered in these circumstances. In this

¶37

:: 7 ::

¶38

view, the trial court’s decision to come to conclusion to dismiss the application for temporary injunction is in all respects justifiable and it stands to reason. Therefore there is no ground to admit this appeal. Accordingly appeal is

¶39

dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sri. S. K. Mallikarjun v. Mr. Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S. K. Mallikarjun v. Mr. Rajanna

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

Ramachandra D Vs Smt Padmavathi

Smt N Vedha Vs Sri v Nagesh

Sri Shivamurthappa P Vs Smt M Prathima

Sri D C Krishna Vs Smt Krishnaveni

The Union of India Vs Sri.Shivaram

Sri T R Narendra Vs the State of Karnataka