Allowed

Sri.Mallikarjunagouda S/O Ramanagiouda v. Sri.Karibasavanagouda S/O Late Ramanagouda

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2023MFA/100450/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court set aside an order appointing a receiver for agricultural land where no material indicated mismanagement. The court directed the trial court to decide the suit within six months, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order appointing the receiver dated 14.12.2018 set aside. Mandate given to trial court to decide the suit within six months.

Sri.Mallikarjunagouda S/O Ramanagiouda Vs… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8048 MFA No. 100450 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100450 OF 2019

¶7

(CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA S/O RAMANAGOUDA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BYRAPURA VILLAGE, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI-583121.

¶10

1.A SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

¶11

Digitally signed by SAROJA SAROJA HANGARAKI HANGARAKI Date: 2023.08.04 11:44:09 - 0700

¶12

1.B SRI. R.MANJUNATHGOUDA S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

¶13

1.C SRI. R AMARESHGOUDA S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

¶14

1.D SRI. PRAKASHGOUDA S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

¶15

ALL ARE R/O. BAIRAPURA CROSS, BAIRAPURA POST,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8048 MFA No. 100450 of 2019

¶18

TQ: SHIRAGOPPA, DIST: BALLARI.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI.KARIBASAVANAGOUDA S/O LATE RAMANAGOUDA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BYRAPURA VILLAGE, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI-583121.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(s) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:14.12.2018, PASSED IN O.S.NO.126/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIRUGUPPA, ALLOWING THE IA NO.10 FILED U/O. 40 RULE 1 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 14.12.2018 in O.S.No.126/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Siruguppa.

¶29

In terms of the impugned order, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XL Rule 1 of Code of Civil

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8048 MFA No. 100450 of 2019

¶31

Procedure is allowed and receiver is appointed to manage the suit schedule property.

¶32

It is stated that the suit schedule property is an agricultural land. Pursuant to the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant, this Court vide order dated 12.03.2019 stayed the operation of the impugned order appointing the receiver. Admittedly, till today the receiver is not appointed and no further application is filed reporting alleged mismanagement by either of the parties.

¶33

Under these circumstances, considering the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2016, this Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of both parties that a direction has to be issued to the trial Court to expedite and decide the matter within six months from the date of this order.

¶34

Sri.Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel

¶35

for the appellants would also point to the fact that the application of the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8048 MFA No. 100450 of 2019

¶37

was rejected by the trial Court and thereafter he has filed an application for appointment of receiver. The property is

¶38

not managed by the receiver though the order of appointment of receiver is passed in 2019. Hence, there is no need to appoint the receiver.

¶39

It is also required to be noticed that receiver is

¶40

to be appointed only in such cases where the mismanagement is established. The materials on record would not indicate that the property is mismanaged. It is also an admitted fact that the land is agricultural land. Accordingly, the application for appointment of receiver is rejected by setting aside the impugned order.

¶41

Since this Court has fixed mandate to dispose

¶42

of the matter within six months, it is expected that both parties shall co-operate in early disposal of the suit before the trial Court and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8048 MFA No. 100450 of 2019

¶44

It is also made clear that this Court has not

¶45

expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Any observations made in this order are only confined to disposal of this appeal.

¶46

The trial Court shall decide the suit without

¶47

being influenced by any of the observations other than the mandate for early disposal made in this order, as nothing is decided on merits.

¶48

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Order dated

¶49

14.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.126/2016 on the file of

¶50

Senior Civil Judge, Siruguppa is set aside.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

SH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri.Mallikarjunagouda S/O Ramanagiouda v. Sri.Karibasavanagouda S/O Late Ramanagouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Mallikarjunagouda S/O Ramanagiouda v. Sri.Karibasavanagouda S/O Late Ramanagouda

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

Shivappa Bhima Belagali Vs Ramachandra Kallappa Belagali

K.R. Thayappa @ Kyara Thayappa Vs Dodda Thayamma W/O Late Sandur Thayappa

Sri. Shivaputrayya S/O Patrayya Sasvihallimath Vs Smt. Lalita W/O Basanagouda Patil

Annappa S/O Gangadhar Gangale Vs the Special Land Acqusition Officer

Shri. Mallappa Sateeppa Pujeri Vs Shri. Saranaik S/O Chandappa Pujari

Sheetal Shiralkar Vs Govind Gurunathsa Pawar