Allowed

Smt. Muthamma v. Sri. Shivappa B C

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2022WP/401/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order dismissing an application for police assistance to enforce a temporary injunction. Relying on Smt. Karisiddamma, the High Court held police help was necessary for peaceful possession and set aside the impugned order, allowing the application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.08.2021 set aside; Application IA.XIII allowed; Writ Petition disposed of.

Smt. Muthamma Vs Sri. Shivappa B C — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶5

W.P. NO.401 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT. MUTHAMMA W/O B K SEENAPPA @ CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT KEDAMULLORE VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK S KADAGU-571 218

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI AJAY PRABHU M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . SRI. SHIVAPPA B C

¶12

S/O B K SEENAPPA @ CHINAPPA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶14

R/AT KEDAMULLORE VILLAGE AND POST

¶15

VIRAJPETE TALUK

¶16

S KODAGU-571218

¶17

2 . B S JEEVAN

¶18

S/O B K SEENAPPA @ CHINNAPPA

¶19

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT KEDAMULLORE VILLAGE AND POST

VIRAJPETE TALUK

S KODAGU -571218

3 . B S JAYA S/O B K SEENAPPA @ CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KEDAMULLORE VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPETE TALUK

¶24

S KODAGU -571 218

¶25

4 . B S POOVAPPA S/O B K SEENAPPA @ CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KEDAMULLORE VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK S KODAGU -571 218

¶26

5 . B S CHENAPPA

¶27

S/O B K SEENAPPA @ CHINAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT KEDAMULLORE VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPETE TALUK S KODAGU -571 218

¶28

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, VIRAJPET RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY

¶29

SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU -560 001.

¶30

….RESPONDENTS

¶31

(NOTICE TO R1 TO 5 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; BY SMT. ROOPA K R, HCGP FOR R6)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.08.2021 IN O.S NO.48 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA.NO.XIII AS PRAYED FOR.

¶33

¶34

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This writ petition is filed by defendant No.4 in Original Suit No.48 of 2019, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Virajpet, challenging the order dated 16.08.2021, dismissing application-IA.XIII filed by defendant No.4.

¶37

Brief facts are that, the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement and also pleaded counter claim against the plaintiffs. In the meanwhile, defendant No.4 has filed application in IA.VIII under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction against the plaintiffs from trespassing the schedule property. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 04.12.2020, allowed IA.VIII restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with suit schedule property of the defendants.

¶38

¶39

Thereafter, defendant No.4 filed IA.XIII under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to implement the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court on 04.12.2020 with the police help and said application was objected by the plaintiffs. The trial Court by impugned order dated 16.08.2021, dismissed the said application filed by defendant No.4. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.4 has presented this Writ Petition.

¶40

I have heard Sri Ajay Prabhu M., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Sachin B.S., for the petitioner and Smt. Roopa K.R., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.6.

¶41

Sri Ajay Prabhu M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the grounds urged in the writ petition and sought for interference in this writ petition.

¶42

Learned HCGP served in the matter. Respondents 1 to 5 served and remained absent.

¶43

¶44

Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.6 argued that impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and in the event, if the plaintiffs violate the order of injunction granted by the trial Court, defendant No.4 can initiate contempt proceedings against the plaintiffs. Accordingly, she sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the pleadings on record. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed written statement, so also, urged counter claim against the plaintiffs. Perusal of the order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the trial Court vide Annexure-B, would indicate that the trial Court has restrained the plaintiffs from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property of defendant No.4. By passing the impugned order, the trial Court, has justified in arriving at a conclusion that defendant

¶46

¶47

No.4/petitioner herein may resort to file contempt proceedings against the plaintiffs for violation of the injunction order. However, taking into consideration the law declared by this Court in the case of Smt. Karisiddamma & Others vs. Smt. Sanna Kenchamma reported in ILR 2010

¶48

KAR 1197 , I am of the view that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, police help be required to restrain the plaintiffs from peaceful possession of the defendant No.4. In that view of the matter, impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 16.08.2021 is set aside. IA.XIII filed by petitioner /defendant No.4 is allowed . Accordingly, writ Petition is disposed of .

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Smt. Muthamma v. Sri. Shivappa B C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Muthamma v. Sri. Shivappa B C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahimahesh Vs Sri Swamy

Smt. Puttagangamma @ Gangamma Vs Smt. Neelamma

Puttanarasamma Vs M G Pandurangaiah

Masooda Begum Vs Smt P S Sangeetha

Sri M Muninanja Vs Sri N Changalarayan

A. R. Ramaprasad Vs Smt. Shoba Devi