Dismissed

Sri Mahesh Kumar v. Sri Venkataramanappa

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2022WP/5659/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner challenged orders dismissing an interim injunction application and an associated appeal. The Court held that since the plaintiff's title via a Will was disputed and prima facie possession was not demonstrated, the lower courts' orders could not be interfered with. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the orders dismissing the interim injunction application and the appeal was dismissed.

Sri Mahesh Kumar Vs Sri Venkataramanappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.5659 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. MAHESH KUMAR S/O SRI. SUGANDARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.751/A, 15 ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, 1^ST PHASE, 1^ST STAGE, GOKULA, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶11

SRI. KARIYAPPA S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶12

SRI. VENKATAPPA S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶13

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NEAR OLD BBMP OFFICE, NAGASANDRA POST COLONY, BENGALURU-560 073.

¶14

¶15

SRI. JAYAKAR S. SHETTY S/O LATE SHIVARAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.49, 1^ST CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, SRIRAMAPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶16

SRI. CHARLES SEQUIERE S/O SRI. PETER SEQIERE AGED ABOUT 1 YEARS R/AT NO.58, JYOTHI NILAYA, 4^TH CROSS, SAPTAIRI LAYOUT, DODDABIDARAKALLU, BENGALURU NORTH-560 073.

¶17

….RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT THE DATED 02^ND AUGUST, 2021 PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.22 OF 2020 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ALSO ORDER DATED 23^RD NOVEMBER, 2019 PASSED ON IA IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.889 OF 2016 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-K’ AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.889 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), challenging the order dated 02^nd August, 2021 in

¶22

¶23

Miscellaneous Appeal No.22 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’) confirming the order dated 23^rd November, 2019 in Original Suit No.889 of 2016 on the file of the trial Court, dismissing IA filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶24

Brief facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction, restraining defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.4 from putting up further construction in the suit schedule property. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 23^rd November, 2019, dismissed the IA filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.22 of 2020 before the First Appellate

¶25

¶26

Court. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 02^nd August, 2021, dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by orders passed by the Courts below, the plaintiff has presented this writ petition.

¶27

Sri. K.N. Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, invited the attention of Court to the finding recorded by the trial Court and submitted that the defendants are putting up construction in the property belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have considered the grievance of the petitioner as stated in the application. Therefore, he contended that the orders passed by both the Courts below requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.

¶28

In the light of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by both the Courts below as well as the affidavit filed by the plaintiff accompanying the application in IA. Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the plaintiff claims ownership and possession in respect of the suit schedule property on the basis of the Will which has been seriously disputed by

¶29

¶30

defendants in the written statement. The said Will is required to be proved by the plaintiff to derive the title over the suit schedule property. It is also forthcoming from the orders passed by both the Courts below that, Courts below have arrived at a conclusion that prima facie, the plaintiff has not properly demonstrated his possession over the suit schedule property and therefore, I am of the opinion that, the discretionary orders passed by the Courts below cannot be interfered by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that both the Courts below have dismissed IA filed by the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction based on the material available on record and arrived at a conclusion that there is a cloud in the title of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that there is no infirmity or perversity in the orders passed by the Courts below. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

ARK

Sri Mahesh Kumar v. Sri Venkataramanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahesh Kumar v. Sri Venkataramanappa

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

Mr. Nandlal T. Nandwani Vs Smt. Komala

Sri S Ketan Vs Smt S Sunandamma

E Indrakumar Vs Kudligi Chowdappa

Mr S K Chand Basha Vs Mr K Taj

Radhamma Vs Satyanarayana

Kariyappa Vs Smt. Mangalamma