Allowed

Smt. Nalini. R. Shetty v. Smt. C. Padma

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024MFA/2107/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against grant of temporary injunction in a partition suit over Bilekahalli land purchased by Lakshmamma and sold from 1996 onwards to defendant No.20. The High Court found the Trial Court ignored sale deeds and plaintiff No.1's consenting role, set aside the injunction order, and dismissed the interim injunction applications subject to suit result.

What did the court decide?

Impugned injunction order dated 21.02.2023 set aside; Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 applications dismissed; appellant not to claim equity, subject to suit result.

Smt. Nalini. R. Shetty Vs Smt. C. Padma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2107 OF 2023 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NALINI R. SHETTY, W/O P. RAMAKANTH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.865, PERODY GARDEN, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, MSRS NAGAR, B.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI Y.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SIR Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed 1. SMT. C. PADMA, by SHARANYA T W/O ASHWATH, Location: HIGH D/O LATE CHINNAPPA AND LAKSHMAMMA, COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BESIDE SRINIVASA KALAYANA MANTAPA, BILEKAHALLI, D.C. HALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076

¶13

SMT. SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, D/O LATE CHINNAPPA AND AMMAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.585, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE-560 100

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶15

SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE KOTHWAL RAMACHANDRA, D/O LATE CHINNAPPA AND AMMAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT GURRAPPA MUTT, VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE-562 106

¶16

SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O MUNINANJAPPA, D/O LATE CHINAPPA AND AMMAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT GURRAPA MUTT, VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE-562 106.\

¶17

SRI C. GOPALA @ GOPALAPPA S/O LATE V. CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. AMMAYAMMA G D/O C GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶19

SMT. ANITHA. G D/O C. GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. VARALAKSHMI G., D/O C. GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶21

SRI PRABHAKAR G S/O C GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶22

SRI CHINNAPPA G S/O C. GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶23

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 10 ARE R/AT NO.929, CGJ COMPLEX, BTM 4^TH STAGE, D.C. HALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶25

SMT. K.M. KAMALAMMA W/O LATE C. SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶26

SRI SHIVAKUMAR B.S. S/O LATE C SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶27

SRI PRASANNA KUMAR B.S. S/O LATE C SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶28

RESPONDENTS NO.11 TO 13 ARE R/AT NO.16, NEAR VEERABHADRA SWAMY TEMPLE, BILEKAHALLI, B.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076

¶29

SMT. AMMAYAMMA B.R. D/O LATE V. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶30

SRI B.R. HARISH S/O LATE V. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶31

SMT. LAKSHMI R., D/O LATE V. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶32

SRI NAGESH R, D/O LATE V. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶33

RESPONDENTS NO.14 TO 17 ARE R/AT NO.16A,

¶34

NEAR VEERABHADRA SWAMY TEMPLE, BILEKAHALLI, B.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076

¶35

SMT. CHINNEERAMMA W/O LATE ADHIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶37

SRI MANJUNATHA A, S/O LATE C. ADHIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶38

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE C. ADHIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶39

SRI ANANDA A, S/O LATE C. ADHIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶40

RESPONDENTS NO.18 TO 21 ARE R/AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE, AVANTHI POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562 110

¶41

SRI C. PAPARAJU S/O LATE C. CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT LALAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-562 110

¶42

SMT. AMMAYAMMA D/O LATE CHINNANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT 2^ND CROSS, SHOBHA ARCHADE, SUBRAYAPPA LAYOUT, JAKKURU, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560064

¶43

SRI V. THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE VENKATA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,

¶44

SRI T. KESHAV MURTHY S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.24 AND 25 ARE R/AT NO.559, 4^TH CROSS,

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶46

BSK 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 050

¶47

SRI MEGHARAJ V. TALREJA S/O LATE C. VASHUMAL J. TALREJA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 4^TH CROSS, SRIPURAM, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SMT. VARALAKSHMI B.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 TO R26 ARE D/W V/O DT.26.07.2023)

¶50

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.21.02.2023 PASSED ON IA NOS.1, 2 AND 5 IN O.S.NO.487/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶51

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

¶52

J U D G M E N T

¶53

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 21.02.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 5 in O.S.No.487/2022, on the file of

¶54

the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶55

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶56

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of partition and they contended that one late V.Chinnanna @

¶57

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶58

Chinnappa was the kartha of Hindu undivided joint family and he is the original owner of the property bearing Sy.No.119/1 for an extent of 1 acre 26 guntas including 3 guntas of karab land and in Sy.No.119/2 to an extent of 1 acre 4 in Bilekahalli village, Bengaluru, which is more fully described as schedule ‘A’, ‘B’ and

¶59

‘C’ properties. The plaintiffs further contended that the said Chinnanna had two wives namely, Smt. Ammayamma and Smt. Lakshamma. The first wife Smt. Ammayamma was having five children namely C.Gopala, C Seenappa, C Ramakrishna, Sarojamma and Vankatamma. After the demise of Ammayamma, Chinnanna got married Lakshamma and begotten four children namely, Adhiraju, Padmamma @ Padma, Paparaju and Ammayamma. The plaintiffs further contended that defendant No.1 is the first son of said Chinnanna and Ammayamma and the elder brother of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the children of defendant No.1, defendant No.7 is the wife of late Seenappa, the second son of the said Chinnanna and Ammayamma, defendant Nos.8 and 9 are the children of C. Seenappa and Kamalamma. It is further submitted that defendant Nos.10 to 13 are the children of C.Ramakrishna and Jayamma, defendant No.14 is the wife of one Adhiraju and second wife’s first son of Chinnanna and

¶60

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶61

defendant Nos.15 to 17 are the children of Adhiraju and Chinneramma and defendant Nos.18 and 19 are the third and fourth children of Chinnanna and Lakshmamma and defendant Nos.20 to 23 are the subsequent purchasers. Late Chinnanna died leaving behind ten children and the plaintiffs’ mother on 06.06.1975. The plaintiffs’ mother died on 18.10.2016.

¶62

It is contended that during the year 1984, the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties to an extent of 1 acre 23 guntas and 1 acre 26 guntas were acquired for the Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society. The preliminary notification was made in the name of Chinnappa s/o late Erappa. At the time of preliminary notification, Chinnappa was dead and hence the award notice has been issued by the Land Acquisition Officer in the name of the legal heirs of Chinnappa. By the application of C. Seenappa, the Special Land Acquisition Officer left the property measuring 15 guntas in Sy.No.119/2 i.e. schedule ‘B’ property for the joint family purpose of Chinnanna. After passing of the award, some of the legal heirs of Chinnanna filed objections. Hence, reference under Sections 32 and 33 was made before the City Civil Judge in LAC Nos.50 and 246. The Civil Court ordered to disburse the award amount in favour of

¶63

joint family members. During the pendency of the land

¶64

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶65

acquisition case for enhancement of award amount, the plaintiffs’ mother Lakshmamma, the second wife of Chinnanna along with her two sons Adhiraju and defendant No.18 Paparaju, sold portion of property in Sy.No.119/2 to an extent of 8 guntas in favour of defendant No.20 through a registered sale deed dated 02.04.1996. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.7 to 17 except defendant No.18, did not execute any sale deed in favour of defendant No.20. The defendant No.20 and her husband who is none other than the chairperson of Vijaya Bank Housing Cooperative Society have constructed a parody garden and an apartment and they are residing in one of the flats. The defendant No.1 is in possession of the remaining portion of the properties of 0.08 guntas out of 15 guntas till this date.

¶66

The second wife of Chinnanna i.e., Lakshmamma without intimating any family members in the year 2000 along with her male children Adhiraj and Paparaju, sold portion of property i.e., 0.04 guntas out of remaining 8 guntas in favour of defendant Nos.21 and 22 through the registered sale deed dated 08.11.2000. Again in the year 2000, they sold portion of property i.e., 0.4 guntas out of remaining 0.08 guntas transferred in favour of defendant No.23 through a registered sale deed dated 20.04.2002. The defendant No.1 never

¶67

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶68

disclosed about the transactions of Lakshmamma and even she did not inform her own female children i.e., the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and the defendant No.19. The defendant No.1 without intimating any family members and in collusion with defendant No.21, have created some of the documents. The defendant No.20 has obtained a GPA by defendant No.23 and executed a registered gift deed to an extent of ,2500 sq.ft. in favour of defendant No.1 on 04.09.2020 and on the same day, defendant Nos.21 and 22 in collusion with defendant Nos.20 and 23, have executed a registered sale deed to an extent of 767 sq.ft. of ‘B’ schedule property showing the new hissa i.e., 119/3 and 119/4. The defendant Nos.20 and 23 in collusion with defendant Nos.1 to 6 have created several documents and finally by obtaining the gift deed, defendant No.1 along with defendant Nos.2 to 6 have entered into a joint development agreement with defendant No.19 to develop the portion of the properties obtained through registered gift deed from defendant No.20 vide joint development agreement dated 15.11.2021. The defendant No.1 along with the children, defendant Nos.2 to 6 have developed a commercial complex, namely CGJ complex to an extent of 4,000 sq.ft., out of the joint family funds. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 are making manipulation by saying that remaining portion of

¶69

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶70

property comes under Sy.No.119/1 and created documents in respect of Sy.No.119/2 to deprive the rights of the joint family members and obtained the gift deed from defendant No.20 to show that it is his individual rights. Hence, filed an application in a suit for partition seeking the relief of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 6 in taking up construction.

¶71

The defendant No.20 appeared and filed objections to I.A.No.1 and 2 and filed I.A.No.5 to vacate the exparte ad-

¶72

interim order against defendant No.20. So far as other defendants are concerned, they are yet to appear and some of the defendants have not appeared inspite of service of summons. Only defendant No.20 has appeared through the counsel and insisted on vacating the ad-interim order of temporary injunction. It is contended that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Erappa and he executed a Will and bequeathed the property in favour of his three sons, namely Thanappa, Chinnanna and Abbaia @ Muniswamy. After the death of Erappa, the children have succeeded to the said property bearing Sy.No.119 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas based on the said Will and the said three sons of Erappa have jointly sold the said land to one Muniyappa under a registered sale deed dated 23.06.1947. Out of 2 acres 30 guntas of land, 1

¶73

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶74

acre 26 guntas was sold by Sri Muniyappa in favour of Chinnanna S/o Erappa under a registered sale deed dated 22.01.1959. The same has been subsequently sub-numbered as Sy.No.119/1. The remaining 1 acre 4 guntas was sold to Lakshmamma w/o Chinnanna under a registered sale deed dated 09.06.1972 and subsequently sub-numbered Sy.No.119/2. There was a preliminary notification and subsequently final notification dated 01.06.1985 for acquisition of the lands in Sy.No.119/1 and 119/2 for Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Ltd. It is contended that an extent of 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.119/2 has been dropped from acquisition and only 26 guntas of land was acquired out of Sy.No.119/2 and Smt. Lakshmamma continued to be the absolute owner of the said 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.119/2. Under the said notification, award has been passed in favour of Chinnanna and Lakshmamma regarding respective lands acquired from them. Lakshmamma had sold 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.119/2 (out of 15 guntas owned by her) to defendant No.20 under registered sale deed dated 02.04.1996 and he got converted the said land and has already put up a multistoried apartment consisting of 36 apartments over the said land and over the adjoining land belonging to him after obtaining the

¶75

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶76

sanctioned plan. The construction of the apartment was over long back in the year 2006-07 itself and he has sold most of the apartments to different persons. The said property was the absolute property of Smt. Lakshmamma and she sold the same in his favour. The defendant Nos.1 to 19 and Chinnanna or the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest over the same.

¶77

Smt. Lakshmamma sold an extent of 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.119/2 in favour of defendant Nos.21 and 22 under a registered sale deed dated 14.11.2000. The defendant No.21 and 22 were in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

¶78

The said property was subsequently re-numbered as Sy.No.119/3 and the defendant Nos.21 and 22 got converted the said land. Smt. Lakshmamma sold 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.119/2 in favour of defendant No.23 under a registered sale deed dated 24.04.2002 and defendant No.23 was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The said property was subsequently re-numbered as Sy.No.119/4 and defendant No.23 got converted the said land. Defendant Nos.21 to 23 have sold the properties measuring 4 guntas in Sy.No.119/3 and 767 sq.ft. in Sy.No.119/4 in favour of defendant No.20 under a registered sale deed dated

¶79

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶80

04.09.2020. The defendant No.20 is in possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owner thereof. Smt. Lakshmamma had sold the entire property i.e., 15 guntas and the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest over the said property. The plaintiffs have suppressed certain material facts about other suit and proceedings relating to the suit properties. One Narayanaswamy had filed a suit in O.S.No.6711/2001 against the parties mentioned in the said suit including these defendants in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru for partition and separate possession of his share. The present suit property is item No.6 in the said suit. After enquiry, this Court dismissed the said suit in respect of item Nos.5 and 6 by judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 in respect of the properties purchased by defendant No.20. Against the said judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 Sri Narayanaswamy has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A.No.893/2015 and the same is pending. The Hon'ble Court in the said suit has observed that this defendant has developed the property and has constructed an apartment building thereon and sold the same to different purchasers. The plaintiffs in the above suit are defendant Nos.23 to 26 and they have contested the suit and they were

¶81

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶82

aware of the said facts. The defendant Nos.21 and 22 had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.3813/2001 against Sri Gopal @ Gopalappa and others and the said suit came to be decreed by a judgment and decree dated 01.09.2016. Smt. Ammayamma filed the suit in O.S.No.1580/2021 and the same is pending. The plaintiffs have suppressed these facts. The defendant has invested huge amount for purchasing the property and he wants to develop the suit property. In view of the exparte order of status-quo, this defendant is unable to develop the suit property. The plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts and obtained the exparte interim order and hence prayed the Court to set aside the order of exparte temporary injunction.

¶83

The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, formulated the point whether the plaintiffs have made out a case to grant the relief of temporary injunction and permanent injunction and also whether defendant No.20 has made out a case to vacate the exparte interim order of status quo. The Trial Court having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out a case for granting of temporary injunction and dismissed the

¶84

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶85

application filed by defendant No.20. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

¶86

The main contention of the learned counsel for the

¶87

appellant is that the Trial Court has committed an error in not considering the material on record. The learned counsel contends that the fact that the property was purchased by Lakshmamma in the year 1972 is not in dispute and the fact that the entire property was acquired, is also not in dispute and out of the acquired property in Sy.No.119/2, 15 guntas was deleted. The said property of 15 guntas was also sold in 8 guntas, 4 guntas and 3 guntas on different dates in favour of defendant Nos.20 to 23. The learned counsel would contend that plaintiff No.1 is a consenting witness to the document of the sale deeds of the year 2000 and 2002 made in favour of defendant Nos.21, 22 and 23. The learned counsel would contend that the other defendants have sold the property in favour of defendant No.20 and joint development agreement was entered in the year 2021. The learned counsel would contend that the earlier suit in O.S.No.6711/2001 and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and R.F.A. is pending and plaintiff No.3 had given evidence in the said suit. The defendant Nos.21 and 22 also filed a suit against defendant No.1 in

¶88

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶89

O.S.No.3813/2001 and the same is decreed and thereafter sold the property in favour of defendant No.20.

¶90

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the said property is not the exclusive property of Lakshmamma and the fact that they are the members of the joint family is not in dispute. The learned counsel would contend that the property in Sy.No.119/2 is sold in favour of the appellant and the appellant made an attempt to put up the construction in the property in Sy.No.119/1 and not in Sy.No.119/2. The learned counsel contends that when the order of status-quo was granted, a portion of the property was also damaged. The learned counsel would contend that the Trial Court having considered the material on record rightly restrained defendant No.20 in putting up the construction and not committed any error in passing the order against defendant No.20. The Trial Court taken note of the factual aspects and comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the defendants and the Court cannot conduct a mini trial at this stage. The Trial Court also passed an order restraining defendant No.20 from alienating or encumbering or creating any third party interest over the I.A.1 schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

¶91

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶92

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶93

and the learned counsel for the respondents, it is not in dispute that originally Sy.No.119 belonged to one Erappa and Erappa executed a Will in the year 1943 and based on the said Will, the property was sold conditionally in favour of Munikadappa in the year 1943 and subsequently the same was confirmed in the 1947. Chikkanna had purchased 1 acre 24 guntas in Sy.No.119/1 on 22.01.1959 and Lakshmamma had purchased the property on 09.06.1972 to the extent of 1 acre 1 gunta including 3 acres of kharab land. It is not in dispute that the property which was in the name of Lakshmamma was acquired by the BDA in the year 1985 and it is also not in dispute with regard to the fact that 15 guntas of land was deleted out of the total extent. The sale transactions are taken place subsequently to the extent of 8 guntas and thereafter 4 guntas and 3 guntas and those sale deeds are made in favour of defendant Nos.20 to 23. The defendant Nos.21 to 23 re-sold the property in favour of defendant No.20.

¶94

The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that when plaintiff No.1 is a party to the sale deed of the year 2000 and 2002 and having knowledge, the suit for

¶95

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶96

partition is barred by limitation. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the copies of the sale deeds were taken subsequently in the year 2003 and 2006 and while filing the suit, included the other children in the suit and sought for the relief of temporary injunction. The Trial Court fails to take note of the fact that plaintiff No.1 is a consenting witness and also signed as witness to the other sale deed and the same has not been discussed by the Trial Court. Instead of the Trial Court jumps to the conclusion in paragraph No.15 that there is a prima facie case and committed an error.

¶97

Having perused the material available on record, it is clear that Lakshmamma had purchased the property on 09.06.1972. It is not in dispute that the property was acquired by BDA in entirety and only 15 guntas was sought and Lakshmamma had sold the property in favour of defendant Nos.20 to 23 and purchasers of 4 guntas and 3 guntas have already re-sold 8 guntas in favour of defendant No.20. Having perused the prima facie material available on record, it is clear that defendant No.20 had purchased 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.118/2 out of 15 guntas and subsequently he had purchased the property from defendant Nos.21 to 23 in the year 2000 and 2002. When such being the case, whether the

¶98

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶99

plaintiffs have got the right over the suit schedule property, whether it is the exclusive property of Lakshmamma and whether the same is ancestral property, the matter has to be determined in the suit itself.

¶100

Now, the relief sought against defendant No.20 is with regard to not to put up any construction and not to encumber or create any third party right. The Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that at this stage there is a prima facie case and fails to take note of the documents executed in favour of defendant No.20 that Lakshmamma had sold 8 guntas of land and the very same Lakshmamma had sold the property in favour of defendant Nos.21 and 22 to the extent of 4 guntas. The Trial Court failed to take note of that the remaining 3 guntas and 4 guntas are sold in favour of defendant No.20 and transactions are taken place subsequently from 1996 onwards, since 8 guntas was purchased by defendant No.20 in the year 1996 and other sale deeds are of the year 2000 and 2002 and the suit is filed in 2022 after long time. In other suit in O.S.No.6711/2001 also, the plaintiffs are the defendants is not in dispute and the said suit is also dismissed and appeal is pending before this Court in R.F.A.No.823/2015. When such being the case, when defendant

¶101

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶102

No.20, who is the appellant herein, based on the title which he confirmed from 1996 onwards, took up the construction, a suit is filed. There is an order of injunction in O.S.No.3813/2001 i.e., defendant Nos.21 and 22 have filed the said suit for the relief of declaration and injunction and the suit is also decreed.

¶103

When such being the case, the plaintiffs claim that they are entitled for the relief of partition. When plaintiff No.1 is a party to the earlier sale deed made in favour of defendant Nos.21 and 22 in the year 2000 and also signatory to the subsequent sale deed dated 20.04.2002 having knowledge of the sale and being a consenting party to the said sale deed and signatory to other sale deed, whether plaintiff No.1 and other plaintiffs are having right over the property has to be determined. Prima facie the documents clearly discloses in favour of defendant No.20, who had purchased the property in the year 1996 and subsequently and after a long time, the present suit is filed for the relief of partition. Whether the suit is barred by limitation or not, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, is a mixed question of fact and law and the same has to be decided by the Trial Court. The Trial Court failed to take note of these documents, which have been produced before the Trial Court and erroneously jumps to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have

¶104

21 - NC: 2024:KHC:10140 MFA No. 2107 of 2023

¶105

made out a prima facie case and hence the order requires to be set aside. The defendant No.20, who is the appellant herein shall not claim any equity in future in case development is made in respect of the suit property, subject to result of the suit in which the plaintiffs have claimed the relief of partition.

¶106

15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶107

following:

¶108

ORDER

¶109

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶110

(ii) The impugned order dated 21.02.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 5 in O.S.No.487/2022 is set aside and consequently the applications filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is dismissed. The appellant/defendant No.20 shall not claim equity and the same is subject to the result of the suit.

¶111

Sd/JUDGE

¶112

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

¶113

SN/MD

Smt. Nalini. R. Shetty v. Smt. C. Padma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nalini. R. Shetty v. Smt. C. Padma

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

Guttu Rayappa @ Nagappa Shetty Vs Mrs Rathnavathi

Sri.K.Jagadish Vs Smt.Leelavathi

Shabana Taj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Khaja Bee Vs Union of India

M.K. Eswarachari Vs K. Vishvesha

Smt Sudarshana Vs N. Vasantha Madhava Hebbar