Disposed

Arumugam Kannaiyan v. K.A. Ramaiah Reddy

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2023MFA/7527/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a first appeal filed against the dismissal of a temporary injunction application. Given the suit is set for evidence, the court directed that no party alienate the suit property until the trial concludes and mandated expedited disposal within one year.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed not to alienate suit property pending suit disposal; trial court directed to dispose suit within one year.

Arumugam Kannaiyan Vs K.A. Ramaiah Reddy — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42385 MFA No. 7527 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7527 OF 2023 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ARUMUGAM KANNAIYAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O KANNAIYAN R/AT NO.421/F, 3RD CROSS 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU – 560038. ALSO AT:-NO.52 MENAKA SUDAR No.6 ANNAI, INDIRANAGAR OKKIYAM, THORAIPAKKAM CHENNAI-600097. …APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B TUMBIGI.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

K.A. RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS S/O K ABBAIAH REDDY

¶12

SRI R SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O K A RAMAIAH REDDY

¶13

SMT. NETHRA AGED 44 YEARS W/O R SRINIVASA REDDY R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT NO.357 3RD CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT HALASURU, BENGALURU - 560008 ALSO AT

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42385 MFA No. 7527 of 2023

¶15

R/AT NO. 421/F, 3RD CROSS 1ST STAGE, INDIRNAGAR BENGALURU – 560038.

¶16

SMT. N LATHA @ LATHA NARAYANAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1-131, TANDAM ROAD TEXAS, U.S.A PERMANENT ADDRESS NO.809, M.E.S.ROAD, 43RD CROSS MUTHYALANAGAR, JALAHALLI BENGALURU - 560054 REP BY HER NATURAL FATHER AND GPA HOLDER M NARAYANAMURTHY …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. S VASANTH MADHAV., ADVOCATE FOR R2: SRI. PARASHURAM R. HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 26.06.2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO. 1683/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8), DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff under Order 43

¶22

rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the order

¶23

dated 26.06.2023 passed by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-43) in

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42385 MFA No. 7527 of 2023

¶25

O.S.No.1683/2023, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code is dismissed.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶27

referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

¶28

The plaintiff has filed a suit with the following prayers:

¶29

“(i) Cancel the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 3 as per sale deed dated 31.08.2020.

¶30

(ii) Direct the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff.

¶31

(iii) Grant the permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, heirs, agents, GPA holder, assignees, administrator, legal representatives, etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

¶32

(iv) Alternatively direct the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to pay Rs.1,40,00,000/- @ 18%

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42385 MFA No. 7527 of 2023

¶34

interest per annum from the date of the receipt of the sale deed till its realization due to non passing of the sale consideration amount to the plaintiff.”

¶35

Along with the plaint he has filed IA Nos. 1 and 2 under

¶36

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code for restraining the defendants from creating the charge/encumbrance in respect of suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The trial court granted an exparte temporary injunction. After service of summons, the defendants have appeared through counsel and filed a written statement and defendant No.4 filed objections to IA No.1 and also filed IA No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the ex-parte temporary injunction. After hearing the parties, the trial court dismissed IA No.1 and allowed IA No.2 filed by defendant No.4 and ex-parte injunction order granted on 13.03.2023 is vacated. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42385 MFA No. 7527 of 2023

¶39

Now, the suit is set down for evidence of the

¶40

parties. Under this circumstance, in the interest of justice, the only relief that can be granted is to direct the parties not to alienate the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit and to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

¶41

In view of the above, I made the following order:

¶42

(i) The appeal is disposed of.

¶43

(ii) The parties are directed not to alienate the suit

¶44

schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

¶45

(iii) The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

(iv) The parties are directed to co-operate for speedy disposal of the suit.

¶47

(v) It is made clear the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 may put up construction in the suit schedule property, in

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:42385 MFA No. 7527 of 2023

¶49

¶50

accordance with law, but they should not alienate the suit

schedule property.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Arumugam Kannaiyan v. K.A. Ramaiah Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam Kannaiyan v. K.A. Ramaiah Reddy

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 Nagaraju Vs Devaraju

Ananda Vs Kiran R

Narasimhanayaka Vs J K Hayath Khan

Sri G Janardhan Vs Smt Lakshmidevamma

Chikkamma Vs Nikhil N M

Ms T Kavitha Vs Mr Sagar K R