Dismissed

Dadasaheb Saidusab Ladkhan v. Dastagirsab S/O Kamalsab Talwar

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024MFA/100878/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous first appeal, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by a purchaser defendant challenging the rejection of an application for interim injunction during pendency of a suit for declaration of title, holding the application not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit; the impugned order dated 28.06.2017 rejecting the application for interim injunction was upheld.

Dadasaheb Saidusab Ladkhan Vs Dastagirsab S/O Kamalsab… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508 MFA No. 100878 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100878 OF 2018 (CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DADASAHEB SAIDUSAB LADKHAN, AGE:59 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANCHINAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI S. S. BAWAKHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

DASTAGIRSAB S/O. KAMALSAB TALWAR, AGE:66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASAVAN GALLI, KILLA, GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶14

RAJESAB S/O KAMALSAB TALWAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

¶15

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

2A. HALIMA W/O. RAJESAB TALWAR, AGE:58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:NEAR NSF COLLEGE BACKSIDE, TIPPU NAGAR, GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶17

2B. MALIK S/O. RAJESAB TALWAR, AGE:35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS, R/O:NEAR NSF COLLEGE BACKSIDE, TIPPU NAGAR, GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶18

2C. KUTABU S/O. RAJESAB TALWAR, AGE:33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS, R/O:NEAR NSF COLLEGE BACKSIDE,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508 MFA No. 100878 of 2018

¶20

TIPPU NAGAR, GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶21

2D. RIZAWANA W/O. YOUNUS SHINDE, AGE:37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:TERDAL CORPORATION PLOT, NEAR DANAGOND HOSPITAL, TERDAL, TQ:TERDAL, DIST:VIJAYAPUR.

¶22

2E. SHABANA W/O. ARIF TAMBOLE, AGE:30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:NEAR NSF COLLEGE BACKSIDE, TIPPU NAGAR, GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶23

HUSENSAB HASANSAB TALWAR SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,

¶24

3A. MUMTAZ W/O. HUSENSAB TALWAR, AGE:39 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSE HOLD, R/O:NEAR MASJID, LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶25

3B. FAIYAZ S/O. HUSENSAB TALWAR, AGE:17 YEARS, OCCUPATION:STUDENT, R/O: NEAR MASJJID, LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶26

3C. SUMAYYA D/O. HUSENSAB TALWAR, AGE:15 YEARS, OCCUPATION:STUDENT, R/O NEAR MASJJID, LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶27

3D. TASMIYA D/O HUSENSAB TALWAR, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O NEAR MASJJID, LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK, TQ GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI

¶28

SINCE 3(B) TO 3(D) ARE MINORS. REP. BY 3 (A) I.E. NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER.

¶29

ILAS S/O. HUSANSAB TALAWAR, AGE:36 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE,

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508 MFA No. 100878 of 2018

¶31

R/O: MAKKALGERI, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶32

YUNUS S/O. HASANSAB TALAWAR, AGE:34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/O NEAR MUTTON MARKET, DALIMBAR TOTA GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶33

MAHABOOBI W/O. IMAMSAB KEMPANNAVAR, AGE:35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSE HOLD, R/O KALADAGI, TQ:BAGALKOT, DIST:BAGALKOT.

¶34

SALMA W/O. AMMASAB KALIBAI, AGE:33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSE HOLD, R/O MAKKALGERI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI SANTOSH HATTIKATAGI AND RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A) TO R2(C); R3(A) TO R3(D) AND R4 TO R7; R1 IS ABATED)

¶37

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (R) OF CPC.,

¶38

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK ON IA NO.11 IN O.S.NO.370/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.11 IN O.S.NO.370/2014, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK AND ETC.,

¶39

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER

¶40

WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508 MFA No. 100878 of 2018

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶46

The above appeal is filed by the defendant No.7 challenging the order dated 28.06.2017 passed on I.A.No.11 in O.S.No.370/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak¹ .

¶47

The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondent No.1 instituted a suit in O.S.No.370/2014 seeking for following reliefs:

¶48

A) It be declared that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 from getting their names entered by changing the revenue records.

¶49

B) Ad-interim temporary injunction as prayed in I.A. be granted.

¶50

C) Costs of the suit be awarded.

¶51

D) Any other relief/s as the court deems fit and proper be granted to the plaintiff.

¶52

E) Permission to amend the plaint as and when necessary be reserved to the plaintiff.

¶53

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”

¶54

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508 MFA No. 100878 of 2018

¶55

In the said suit, the defendant No.7 filed I.A.No.11 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908² for ad-interim injunction restraining the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 from getting their names entered in the suit property. The Trial Court by order dated 28.06.2017 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

¶56

It is forthcoming that while considering the I.A.No.11 filed by the appellant/defendant No.7, the Trial Court has held as follows:

¶57

“7. Admittedly defendants No.1 to 6 are parties before Tahasildar Gokak in waradi filed by them as legal heirs of Kamalasab Talawar to which this plaintiff has filed objections. It is the claim of the defendant No.7 that he had purchased the suit property, he being the owner is entitle to get his name entered in revenue records, but defendants No.1 to 6 denying his title, are trying to get their names entered in the revenue documents of suit property, if they succeed he will be put to hardship. It is admitted fact that in the RTS proceedings before the Tahasildar Gokak it is posted for order after hearing both side. Admittedly this defendant No.7 is not party to the

¶58

2 Hereinafter referred to as “CPC”

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508 MFA No. 100878 of 2018

¶61

said proceeding. Inspite of knowing he is not made as a party in the said proceeding has filed this application restraining the defendants No.1 to 6 getting their names entered in revenue records of suit property. This defendant No.7 has efficacious remedy before Tahasildar Gokak on the basis of sale deed in respect of suit property. This Court cannot interfere in the revenue proceeding as per the provisions of KLR Act. Inspite having efficacious remedy and in view of the provisions of KLR Act this defendant ought to have approached Tahasildar Gokak for necessary reliefs on that ground this application is not maintainable before this court. As already said in view of provisions of KLR Act this court is barred from interfering with the revenue proceedings. Hence the application is not maintainable before this court. It is in this background, I hold that defendant No.7 has not made out any grounds to consider his application.”

¶62

(Emphasis supplied)

¶63

It is forthcoming that defendant No.7 is a

¶64

purchaser of the suit property from defendants 1 to 6. Defendant No.7 is seeking to restrain the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 vide I.A.No.11 from getting their names entered in the revenue records. The suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and to restrain the defendants 1 to 6 from getting

¶65

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508 MFA No. 100878 of 2018

¶66

their names entered in the revenue records. Hence, until the right of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property is adjudicated upon, the question of granting the relief as sought by defendant No.7 vide I.A.No.11 does not arise.

¶67

The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the relevant factual aspect of the matter. Further, in view of the pendency of the suit, the change of revenue entries will be as per the rights of the parties adjudicated in the suit.

¶68

In view of the aforementioned, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order passed by the Trial Court is in any manner erroneous and is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.

¶69

Hence, the appeal is dismissed as being

¶70

devoid of merit.

¶71

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶72

YAN CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Dadasaheb Saidusab Ladkhan v. Dastagirsab S/O Kamalsab Talwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadasaheb Saidusab Ladkhan v. Dastagirsab S/O Kamalsab Talwar

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

Devendrappa S/O Ningappa Bommanalli Vs Ashok S/O Tippanna Bommanalli

Smt. Annusuya W/O Rama Maruche Vs Parwati W/O Basawant Maruche

Shri.Sachin S/O Vasudev Hanji Vs Standard Engineering

Shri Kallppa Vs Shri. Ramachandra

Shri Ramanna Vs Shri Shivappa Revansiddappa Alias Siddappa Doddaningappgol

Smt. U. a. Sheela W/O Late Achyuth Rao Vs Vikas S/O Shridhar Navale