Dismissed

Ilyas Ahmed a v. Mohammed Ashfaque

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2022WP/16181/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting applications for additional evidence. The Court held that in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must prove lawful possession and interference by evidence existing at the date of filing. The dismissed order was consistent with law, noting the plaintiff admitted selling the property to the defendant.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merit.

Ilyas Ahmed a Vs Mohammed Ashfaque — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.16181 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ILYAS AHMED A S/O MOHAMED AMEEN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O NO.729, GROUND FLOOR 9TH MAIN ROAD, PILLANNA GARDEN III STAGE BENGALURU-560045. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

1 . MOHAMMED ASHFAQUE S/O MOHAMMED YOUSUFF AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶11

2 . FAREEDA BEGUM W/O MOHAMMED ASHRAF AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶12

R1 AND R2 ARE R/O NO.25, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR K G HALLI ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU-560045

¶13

3 . QUADIR ALI BAG S/O LATE JABBAR BAIG AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶14

¶15

4 . SHABANA SULTANA W/O J QUDIRE ALI BAIG AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶16

R3 AND R4 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.-09 D STREET, 2ND CROSS, NEW LAYOUT EXTENSION, J J R NAGAR BENGALURU-560008

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 VIDE ORDER DATED 08.12.2021, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 AND LRS OF R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIII ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE MAYO HALL BENGALURU IN O.S.25282/2008 ORDER DATED 15.02.2020 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION AND FURTHER ALLOW THE IA NO.15/2020, I.A.16/2020 AND I.A.NO.17/2020 ALLOWING THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF TO MARK THE DOCUMENTS. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN OS.NO.25282/2008 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE MAYO HALL BENGALURU, UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.15/2020 to 17/2020 in O.S.No.25282/2008 by the learned XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore City.

¶24

The petitioner-plaintiff has instituted a aforesaid suit for injunction simplicitor. The said suit is filed in the year 2008. The present plaintiff to substantiate his claim has led his evidence and produced documentary evidence. When the matter was set in for arguments, the petitioner-plaintiff has come up with three applications requesting the Court to reopen plaintiff case by recalling the order dated 12.12.2019 and permit the plaintiff to lead further evidence by producing the additional evidence.

¶25

¶26

The learned Judge having rejected the

¶27

application, at paragraph 4 of the order, has commented on the conduct of the plaintiff in the manner in which the present suit is being prosecuted.

¶28

The learned Judge has observed that the plaintiff having led his evidence concluded his side and after the conclusion of the evidence, again an application in I.A. No.10 was filed seeking leave to produce documents which was allowed and further, additional documents were taken on record plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence. Thus, leave was granted by the learned Judge on earlier occasion. The plaintiff was permitted to lead further evidence in terms of the additional documents and thereafter, he was cross examined by the defendant. Having led further evidence, now the plaintiff has again filed applications seeking permission to lead further evidence and is also seeking leave to produce additional documents.

¶29

¶30

These applications are filed when the matter was

¶31

posted for arguments.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶33

perused the order challenge.

¶34

On query, learned counsel for the petitionerplaintiff would fairly submit to this Court that the documents sought to produce were not in existance on the date of filing of the suit. Though the learned counsel intends to place reliance on the registered sale deed executed by the petitioner-plaintiff in favour of the defendant, this Court is of the view that the said document is not necessary for the effective adjudication of the controversy in question between the parties. The plaintiff has admitted that he has sold the property in favour of the defendant. He

¶35

¶36

contends that the defendant has, in turn, leased the suit schedule property in his favour.

¶37

If the respondent-defendant has acquired the title pursuant to the registered sale deed, the petitioner-plaintiff has to independently establish the lawful possession based on the documentary evidence. He cannot place reliance on the additional documents which have come into existence during the pendency of the suit. It is trite that the plaintiff in a bare suit for injunction, has to establish his lawful possession as on the date of filing the suit and also establish interference by the defendant and these two ingredients are to be proved by the plaintiff by leading cogent evidence. Therefore, having regard to the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the order under challenge is in accordance with law. No error is committed by the learned Judge.

¶38

¶39

Hence, I pass the following order:

¶40

Writ petition is devoid of merit and it is

¶41

accordingly dismissed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Cs/-

Ilyas Ahmed a v. Mohammed Ashfaque

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ilyas Ahmed a v. Mohammed Ashfaque

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K R Venkataramaiah Vs K v Krishnappa

Sri.K.v.Doddaiah Vs Sri.B.Lakshmaiah

K v Krishnappa Vs Sri Anjaneya Murthy

Smt. Gowramma Vs Sri. Dayananda Pai

Smt Hema @ Hemavathi Vs Shri Raghunath

Sri. Ravi Vs Smt. Shashikala