This decision grants an injunction restraining the respondent from further construction, imposes a Rs.30,000 penalty for violating a status quo order, and disposes of the miscellaneous first appeal based on the violation of court directives.
Injunction against further construction and creation of third party rights; Rs.30,000 cost imposed on the respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:32389 MFA No. 2829 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2829 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. R. CHAVAN, S/O. C. RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A NO.29 AND 30, G-102, RAYARA NERALU APARATMENT, GATTIGERE GRAMA EXTENSION, BEML 3RD STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR. M.S., LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SMT. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MRS M. RENUKA, W/O SHIVARAJ K., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT. KALPAYRUKSHA NILAYA, NO.1583, 27TH MAIN ROAD, 39TH CROSS, SRIGANDHADAKAVALU, POORNACHANDRA ‘D’ GROUP LAYOUT, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 091.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHWATHANARAYAN S.N., LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. SURESH S., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 PASSED ON
NC: 2024:KHC:32389 MFA No. 2829 of 2024
I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.250/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-15, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.250/2024 dated 15.03.2024 by the VIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru whereby the Trial Court had rejected the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking injunction.
Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring East-West:60 feet and North to South: 40 feet, comes under the administrative control of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. He had purchased the said property by way of a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2019. The vendor of the plaintiff had acquired the suit property by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 02.02.2015 executed by his brother H.V. Ramesh and said H.V. Ramesh had acquired the property by way of a registered sale deed dated 02.02.2004 and his vendor had purchased the property as per the conversion order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and also conversion sanction dated 24.07.1995 issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk and they have acquired the land by way of a registered sale deeds. It is the case of the plaintiff that since 2004, till now, he has filed the tax receipts. According to them, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and prior to them their vendor. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 02.01.2024 and 03.01.2024 the defendant has come to the suit schedule property and attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and in this regard, a police complaint was also
given. In these circumstances the plaintiff had come before the Court seeking the relief of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
the Court. On 31.07.2023, the defendant had noticed that from 3-4 days some strangers are continuously coming to the said site and illegally entering the said premises. On 02.08.2023, when the defendant come to the place along with the laborers for removing the unwanted plants grown and garbage dumped in the said property. Therein, the plaintiff with the help of antisocial elements had trespassed into the land by claiming that he is the owner of the property and also lodged a police complaint. The defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff in respect to the property. According to him, the suit schedule property that is as on date of executing the registered sale deed dated 02.02.2004 by H.V. Ramesh, the plaint schedule property bearing No.206 was not physically existing as the original sale transaction of the said vacant site is dated 18.02.1999. Hence, the sale deed dated 10.04.2019 of the plaintiff in respect of non-existing suit schedule property bearing No.206 is not valid. Along with the suit I.A.No.1 is filed seeking interim injunction.
order to establish the prima facie case has produced a letter written by the plaintiff to the ICICI Bank Limited, wherein he has mentioned about the sale deed, encumbrance certificate, gift deed, Form ‘B’ and tax paid receipts which are in the custody of the ICICI Bank Limited. He has produced the copy of registered sale deed and also the Trial Court had discussed the measurements with regard to the documents that are placed on behalf of the plaintiff. Then, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that in the sale deed dated 02.06.2004 as well as in the gift deed dated 02.02.2015, the extent of the site bearing No.206 was mentioned as East-West: 60 feet and North-South: 40 feet, but in the sale deed standing in the name of the plaintiff, the extent is mentioned as 60 feet X 37 feet, which is contrary to the previous title deed and there is no explanation on the part of the plaintiff with regard to said material discrepancy appearing in the extent of the suit property and the Trial Court had considered the case of the defendant wherein it is stated that they have been in possession of the property right from 30.06.2016 and also it is their case that the sale deed is executed in respect of a non-existing property and further, some structures are existing in the suit schedule
NC: 2024:KHC:32389 MFA No. 2829 of 2024
property and considering all these, the Trial Court felt that there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, rejected the application.
“Sri. Suresh S., learned counsel undertakes to appear for respondent and seeks time to file vakalath and objections.
He would however submit by producing copy of photograph that one bed-room single floor house is already constructed in suit property and same status would be maintained till disposal of suit and further construction would be subject to final outcome of appeal without claiming any equities in case plaintiff succeeds.
Submission is placed on record.
Respondent shall file an affidavit to said effect before this Court within one week.
Re-list on 13.06.2024.”
violation of the orders of the Court. It is submitted that as on that time, the defendant was not in town and in view of the communication gap, this further construction had taken place i.e., putting up of a Sintex tank and to safeguard the property installed the grill.
NC: 2024:KHC:32389 MFA No. 2829 of 2024
contrary to the purport of the said provision and unless injunction is granted, it would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiff and all these aspects were not considered by the Trial Court. He submits that earlier the defendant had filed a suit, in that, when the Court had refused the injunction and at the same time, in the suit that is filed by the appellant herein when the injunction was not granted he had cleverly withdrawn the said suit filed by him. It is submitted that all these actions of the defendant shows that he is violating the orders of the Court and it also shows the conduct of the defendant.
of the Court and made further construction. For that, the submission of the defendant is that to safeguard his property,
NC: 2024:KHC:32389 MFA No. 2829 of 2024
he had to make certain constructions where he has installed the grill and also for the purpose of preserving the water, a tank has been installed. Further there is no deliberate violation and it is pure communication gap. This submission on behalf of the defendant cannot be appreciated. Whatever is the necessity and when once the statusquo order is passed, the defendant cannot make the construction and cannot come up with these kinds of pleas before the Court. If at all for any security purpose something has to be done, the same could have been done after obtaining the necessary permission from the Court. Considering the undertaking given by the defendant, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:
ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:32389 MFA No. 2829 of 2024
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant injunction restraining the defendant from making further construction after violation of coordinate bench order?
Whether to impose costs on the defendant for violating the undertaking and court orders?
Whether the appeal should be allowed or disposed of in light of the facts?
MR. R. CHAVAN
MRS M. RENUKA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
