Partly allowed

Srinivasa v. M.R.Srinivasaiah

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2022WP/14478/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 227 quashing a lower court order granting temporary injunction. It held that doubtful titles do not automatically entitle a plaintiff to injunction if they are in lawful possession. The court imposed status quo and directed speedy disposal of the original suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; status quo maintained pending disposal of original suit; lower courts' observations on doubtful title quashed.

Srinivasa Vs M.R.Srinivasaiah — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.14478 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Srinivasa Aged about 61 years, S/o. Narasimhaiah

¶7

Thyagaraja, Aged about 51 years, S/o. Narasimhaiah.

¶8

Vasantha Kumar, Aged about 46 years, S/o. Narasimhaiah.

¶9

All are residing at Mavinahalli, C.S. Pura Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur – 572 213.

¶10

.. Petitioners

¶11

(By Sri. C.M. Nagabushana, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

M.R. Srinivasaiah, Aged about 71 years, S/o. Ramappagowda Residing at Mavinahalli, C.S. Pura, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur – 572 213.

¶14

.. Respondent (By Sri. Kamaleshwara Poojary, Advocate)

W.P.No.14478/2016

****

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ or appropriate order of similar nature, setting aside the order dated 13-01-2016, passed in M.A.No.7/2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, at Gubbi vide Annexure G, etc.

¶19

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The present respondent as a plaintiff has instituted a suit against the present petitioners, arraigning them as defendants in O.S.No.267/2015, in the Court of the learned Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gubbi (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial

¶22

Court”) for the relief of bare injunction.

¶23

The suit schedule property is said to be a landed property measuring 01 gunta in Sy.No.165/1 and measuring 02 guntas in Sy.No.165/2 of Mavinahalli C.S. Pura Hobli, Gubbi Taluk. According to the plaintiff, the said property was purchased by his father Sri. Ramappagowda @ Ramaiah from one Smt. Doddamma W/o. Huchegowda,

¶24

on her behalf and also on behalf of her minor daughter

¶25

W.P.No.14478/2016 3

¶26

Kum. Hanumamma, under a registered Sale Deed dated 01-05-1942, for a valuable consideration. After the death of Sri. Ramappagowda, the plaintiff as his legal heir, has succeeded to the said property. The khata and pahani of the said property were mutated in the name of Ramappagowda during his life time. It is also the case of the plaintiff that, Kum. Hanumamma, the daughter of Smt. Doddamma, after attaining majority, filed a suit in O.S.No.95/44-45 against her mother Smt. Doddamma and the father of the plaintiff, i.e. Sri. Ramappagowda and others for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the properties. The said suit is said to have ended in a compromise between the parties. According to the plaintiff, even under the said compromise, Smt. Hanumamma did not get any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, however, the defendants, creating a registered Sale Deed in favour of their father which is shown to have been executed on 22-10-1960, claim their title and possession over the suit schedule property. Alleging that

¶27

W.P.No.14478/2016

¶28

¶29

the defendants are interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property, the plaintiff has filed the suit before the Trial Court, for bare injunction.

¶30

The defendants entered appearance and filed their Written Statement and also adopted the same as objection to the I.A.No.1, that was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the CPC”). After hearing both side, the Trial Court rejected the said application – I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff, on the ground that, when the plaintiff’s title over the property is seriously disputed and doubted by the defendants, the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable. It also suspected the alleged possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. However, in an appeal filed by the plaintiff in M.A.No.7/2015, in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gubbi (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the first appellate Court), the said order of the Trial Court came to be set aside and the interlocutory application – I.A.No.1

¶31

W.P.No.14478/2016

¶32

¶33

filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC before the Trial Court, came to be allowed by the first appellate Court only on the ground that, the documents placed before it creates a doubt about the alleged title of the defendants’ father upon the suit schedule property. It is challenging the said order of the first appellate Court, the defendants in the original suit are before this Court in this petition, as petitioners.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants) in

¶35

his argument submitted that, when the Trial Court had rightly rejected the application – I.A.No.1 of the plaintiff for temporary injunction, the first appellate Court, observing that, there was a cloud over the documents produced by the defendants and ignoring the fact that the plaintiff’s title itself was under cloud, has erroneously set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff. He further submits that, the very prayer made in the interlocutory application – I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC

¶36

W.P.No.14478/2016

¶37

¶38

is only seeking restrainment of the defendants from putting

¶39

up any construction in the suit property. However, the defendants have already put up a Barber Shop in the suit property in a small area, as such, the said i.A. itself has become infructuous and also the prayer in the plaint itself goes to show that, it is the defendants who are in possession of the property.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶41

respondent/plaintiff submitted that, the first appellate Court has rightly observed that, the defendants’ alleged title over the suit schedule property itself is doubtful and that the plaintiff, by producing documents including the Sale Deed has shown that, he is in possession of the suit property, as such, the impugned order cannot be interfered with.

¶42

A careful perusal of the orders passed by both the Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court would go to show at this stage that, considering the fact that the plaintiff claims his title through one Smt. Doddamma and

¶43

W.P.No.14478/2016 7

¶44

the defendants claim their title through one

¶45

Smt. Hanumamma, who is none else than the daughter of said Smt. Doddamma, made an observation that the alleged title of the plaintiff under the circumstances of the case was doubtful, as such, a suit for bare injunction was not maintainable. On the contrary, the first appellate Court made an opposite observation holding that, it was the defendants’ title that was in cloud, as such, the plaintiff was entitled for the relief sought for.

¶46

It has to be observed at this juncture that merely because the defendants’ title is said to be in cloud, that itself ipso facto does not entitle the plaintiff for the relief of temporary injunction. It is for the plaintiff to prove that he has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the institution of the suit. The alleged weakness, if any, in the case of the defendants cannot be encashed by a person who approaches the Court for the relief in a civil litigation.

¶47

W.P.No.14478/2016

¶48

¶49

Since in the instant case, the Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have doubted the alleged title of both the plaintiff as well the defendants respectively, in their orders, and also considering the nature of the plaint averments, I am of the view that, for neither of the Courts, it was warranted to make any such observations, thus, giving a finding regarding the maintainability of the suit, as a finality, while disposing of the interlocutory application under consideration. They were required to go through the pleadings of the parties carefully and thereafter could have given a finding whether the plaintiff was entitled for granting of temporary injunction or not. At the same time, both the Courts should not have losted the notice of the relief sought for in I.A. filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which was merely for restraining the defendants from putting up any construction in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not stated that the defendants are interfering in his possession, as such, they must be

¶50

W.P.No.14478/2016

¶51

¶52

restrained from interfering in the alleged possession of the property by the plaintiff.

¶53

Admittedly, during the pendency of the suit, the defendants are said to have put up a small construction measuring 10 ft.x15 ft. in the suit schedule property and is said to be running a Barber Shop since October-2015. That being the case, I am of the view that, leaving the parties to agitate their entitlement in the Original Suit, suffice it to direct both the parties to maintain status-quo with respect to suit schedule property as on date till the disposal of the Original Suit.

¶54

Accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed.

¶55

The impugned order dated 13-01-2016, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, at Gubbi, in M.A.No.7/2015, stands quashed.

¶56

The observation made by both the Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court on the alleged doubtfulness in the title of both the parties to the suit, also stands quashed.

¶57

W.P.No.14478/2016 10

¶58

But the question of maintainability of the suit, if required, to be agitated by the defendants is left open to be agitated at the appropriate time, in the Trial Court.

¶59

With the above observation, modifying the impugned order of the Trial Court to the extent that both the parties shall maintain status-quo with respect to the suit schedule property as on today, where it is stated that the defendants have put up a shop in the suit schedule property, as shown in Annexure F to this writ petition, which is said to be measuring 10 ft. x 15 ft., the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶60

Considering the age of the Original Suit, disposal of the Original Suit, in accordance with law, at the earliest but not later than eight months from today by the Trial Court, is highly appreciated.

¶61

Both side parties to co-operate with the Trial Court in disposal of the Original Suit.

¶62

W.P.No.14478/2016

¶63

¶64

Registry to transmit a copy of this order along with the Trial Court records to the concerned Trial Court

¶65

immediately.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

BMV*

Srinivasa v. M.R.Srinivasaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasa v. M.R.Srinivasaiah

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

Freeda Lobo Vs Lord Bishop of Mananthavady

Sri Chandrashekar Vs Smt v N Malathi

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Sri Lakshminarayana

Sri H R Puttarevanna Vs Sri Shreekantaiah

Sri Boriah Vs Sri Nagabyraiah

Sri. D. Nagaraj Vs Sri. N. Umashankar