Dismissed

Chandrashekhar S/O Gurulingappa Mayakar v. Dharmanagouda S/O Bheemanagouda Patil

Karnataka HC16 May 2023WP/103138/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed to quash an order rejecting an application for injunction in a specific performance suit. The court held that without evidence of delivered possession, the lower courts were justified in refusing the injunction against true owners.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order of the lower appellate Court refusing injunction was not interfered with.

Chandrashekhar S/O Gurulingappa Mayakar Vs… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 103138 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 103138 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANDRASHEKHAR, S/O. GURULINGAPPA MAYAKAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD. REPRESENTED BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BASAVARAJ RAMAPPA MANGOJI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O: SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-580 011.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANILocation:DHARWADDate: 2023.05.1817:47:46 -0700

¶14

DHARMANAGOUDA, S/O. BHEEMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD 580011.

¶15

SMT. SUJATHA W/O. DHARMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-580011.

¶16

MANJUNATH S/O. DHARMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 103138 of 2023

¶19

R/O: SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶20

NEAR MASUTI, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-580011.

¶21

LAXMI D/O. DHARMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-580011.

¶22

ANANDRAO, S/O. DHARMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-580011.

¶23

DEEPA D/O. DHARAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-580011.

¶24

SHOBHA D/O. DHARMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/04/2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN R.A.NO.11/2023 BY THE 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2(A) CPC IN RA. NO.33/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

WP No. 103138 of 2023

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The captioned writ petition is filed by plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate Court on I.A.No.2 filed under order 39 Rule 1 and 2(A) read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶31

The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance alleging that the defendants have voluntarily executed a registered agreement of sale on 16.06.2004 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- and has paid Rs.2,70,000/as earnest money. Defendants have contested the suit and claimed that they had no intention to sell the suit property and the transaction is a loan transaction and the said agreement is executed by way of collateral security. The trial Court after full-fledged trial dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶32

Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 103138 of 2023

¶35

Pending consideration of appeal, plaintiff filed an application seeking injunction. The said application is rejected by the lower appellate Court. Plaintiff is before this Court assailing the order of the lower appellate Court passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. On examining of the order under challenge this Court would find that plaintiff had filed a similar application seeking injunction against the defendants. The trial Court having examined the recitals in the said agreement and other prima facie materials rejected the application. Plaintiff preferred an appeal in M.A.No.42/2014. The trial Court however proceeded on merits and now the suit is dismissed and appeal is pending.

¶36

Relief of injunction is a discretionary relief and Courts have to examine the equities after looking into prima facie materials. The plaintiff’s suit for specific performance is dismissed. The suit document, that is suit agreement does not indicate that the possession was delivered. The trial Court at first instance and the appellate Court were

¶37

¶38

WP No. 103138 of 2023

¶39

justified in not granting injunction against the true owner in the absence of evidence indicating that the possession was delivered pursuant to execution of agreement to sell. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Chandrashekhar S/O Gurulingappa Mayakar v. Dharmanagouda S/O Bheemanagouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar S/O Gurulingappa Mayakar v. Dharmanagouda S/O Bheemanagouda Patil

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

H R Prabhakara Murthy Vs Sowbhagyamma

Sayed Moosa Sio Sayed Fakir Vs the Director

Jeevan W/O Ramchandra Pawar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Subramani Urf Mani S/O. Nagabushan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Omanna S/O Maruti Gondakar Vs the Managing Director

Smt Gangutai D/O Goudappa Naganuri Vs the Managing Director