Dismissed

Smt. Venkatamma v. T Kumar

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2022WP/458/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash orders dismissing an application for temporary injunction in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that both Courts below rightly rejected the application as it required trial of title and possession facts, making the Writ appl

What did the court decide?

No interference; Writ Petition dismissed as devoid of merits.

Smt. Venkatamma Vs T Kumar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.458 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A ARALALUSANDRA VILLAGE HOSUR POST, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT KARNATAKA-562109 REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THIMMAIAH @ RAJU

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHINAY Y T, ADVOCATE) AND

¶9

T KUMAR S/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS AND R/A ARALALUSANDRA VILLAGE HOSUR POST, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT KARNATAKA-562109

¶10

….RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI B. RAVINDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29^TH JULY, 2020 PASSED IN MA NO.8 OF 2020 BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA VIDE ANNXEURE-J AND ORDER DATED 22^ND JUNE, 2020 PASSED IN OS NO.668 OF 2013 BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiff/appellant in MA No.8 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara confirming the order dated 22^nd June, 2020 passed on application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure in Original Suit No.668 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Ramanagara, dismissing the application.

¶17

The relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that the plaintiff has filed suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, plaintiff has filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking

¶18

¶19

temporary injunction against the defendant; and the said application was resisted by defendants as per Annexure-G. the trial Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 22^nd June, 2020 dismissed the application and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.8 of 2020 on the file of the First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, by impugned order dated 29^th July, 2020 dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the order dated 22^nd June, 2020 passed in Original Suit No. No.668 of 2018 on the file of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred this Writ Petition.

¶20

I have heard Sri Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Abhinay Y T, for the petitioner and Sri B. Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶21

Sri Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below require interference in this Writ Petition as the

¶22

¶23

plaintiff has made out a case for granting of temporary injunction as the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, he contended that the orders passed by the both the Courts below require to be set aside.

¶24

Per contra, Sri Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property and to substantiate his legitimate right insofar as suit schedule property is concerned, the defendant has produced the documents showing relevant entries in the mutation and RTC extract before the trial Court and therefore, he sought to justify the impugned order passed by the both the Courts below.

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed suit seeking declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has produced the notice issued by the Surveyor in respect of the suit schedule property to substantiate the possession in respect of the suit schedule property. However, the defendant has produced the sale deed 28^th October, 1954 to substantiate the

¶26

¶27

right of ownership in respect of the suit schedule property and also produced the mutation and RTC extracts before the trial Court. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below have rightly rejected application filed by the plaintiff and there is no ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

lnn

Smt. Venkatamma v. T Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Venkatamma v. T Kumar

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

Sri Rangappa D Vs Ms Beena John

Sri Venaktaramanappa Vs Smt Hemavathi

M B Shivagangappa Vs H Nageshaiah

Sri Amarchand Vs Sri M Narayanappa

Shri Shridhar Vs Smt Akbari Banu

Augustine Novello Vs Chinnappa