Partly allowed

Smt G Geetha v. Sri Venu Kumar

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022WP/5705/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition under Article 227. The court permitted the petitioners to construct on the subject property, subject to the outcome of the underlying suit and an undertaking not to involve third parties, while directing both sides to cooperate for the suit's disposal within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders modified to permit construction subject to suit outcomes, condition of no third-party assistance, and direction for suit disposal within nine months.

Smt G Geetha Vs Sri Venu Kumar — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5705/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT G GEETHA W/O T R MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5 8^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR B BLOCK KONENA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560017.

¶8

SRI T R MUNIRAJU S/O LATE N P RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5, 8^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR B BLOCK, KONENA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560017.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SRI VENU KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE P NARASIMHAIAH RESIDING AT NALLURAHALLI VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK

¶13

¶14

KARNATAKA-560066.

¶15

SMT MANJULA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O LATE P NARASIMHAIAH W/O SRI GOPALA REDDY RESIDING AT BEGUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TQ KARNATAKA-560068.

¶16

SMT KOMALA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O LATE P NARAISMHAIAH W/O SRI BUCHA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.16 THIRUPALYA HEBBAGODI POST BENGALURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA-560099.

¶17

SMT SUDHA

¶18

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O LATE P NARASIMHAIAH W/O SRI Y SUBRAMANI RESIDING AT GAJAGA VILLAGE BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KARNATAKA-563114.

¶19

5. SMT PAVITHRA

¶20

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS D/O LATE P NARASIMHAIAH W/O SRI BABU REDDY RESIDING AT BEGUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TQ KARNATAKA-560068.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2021 MADE IN O.S.NO.1507/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-X TO THE WRIT PETITION; QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2022 MADE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.79/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-Z TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Sri C. Shankar Reddy and Sri T.P.Vivekananda,

¶27

the learned counsel for the parties, were heard on the earlier occasions, and they were given liberty to place on record the affidavit that could contain mutually acceptable arrangement insofar as the use of the subject property subject to the final outcome of the suit. Pursuant to such liberty, the petitioners have filed their affidavit on 5.11.2022, and undertaking reads as under:

¶28

"I submit that I intend to put up construction all by myself and I do not intend to take the

¶29

¶30

assistance of any third parties for putting up construction over the property belonging to me. I submit that I do not intend to sell the property in favour of anyone either in vacant condition or after put up construction and if required I shall take the leave of the court in this behalf. I submit that in the said circumstances, I may be permitted to put up construction of my choice over the property belonging to me and if so permitted, I will not claim any equities in this behalf. I submit that I am prepared to give up the property either in vacant condition or if constructions are already put up then even in the constructed portion, which would be equivalent with the plaintiffs' alleged entitlement and I will settle in terms of the final outcome of the proceedings ."

¶31

The unanimous submission is that the aforesaid undertaking could be taken on record and the impugned orders modified permitting the petitioners to put up construction in the subject property but subject

¶32

¶33

to the terms now undertaken. They also submit that the parties would assist the civil Court in expeditious disposal of the suit and such expeditious disposal could be within nine [9] months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the light of these unanimous submissions, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

[i] The petition stands disposed of modifying the impugned orders permitting the petitioners to put this subject property to use as now proposed by them but on the condition that such use and construction shall be subject to the outcome of the suit and they shall not claim any equity. Further, the petitioners shall not avail any financial assistance from the third parties creating charge over the subject property.

¶36

¶37

[ii] The parties shall assist and cooperate with the civil Court in the expeditious disposal of the suit and such expeditious disposal, subject to the civil Court’s board, shall be within nine [9] months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

SA/Ct:sr

Smt G Geetha v. Sri Venu Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt G Geetha v. Sri Venu 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

M/S Here Solutions India Private Limited Vs M/S Redwoods Holdings and Realty Services LLP

Mr K S M Shabbir Vs M/S Nitesh Estates Limited

R v Narayana Gowda Vs Sri Annappa Gowda

Sri G Janardhan Reddy Vs Mr Venkatesh

Gangappa Vs Shivanna

Smt Gowramma Vs Sri Thippeswamy