Disposed

Sri D. Sudhakar v. Smt. M.Rukmini

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2024MFA/4100/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal disposed of a challenge against the Trial Court's rejection of an injunction restraining defendants from alienating property. The court noted the property was already sold to another party and directed the appellant to seek relief against the subsequent purchaser.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to appellant to seek appropriate relief against Defendant No.18 regarding the prior sale.

Sri D. Sudhakar Vs Smt. M.Rukmini — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47160 MFA No. 4100 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4100 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI D. SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O P. DEVARAJ NO.46, 1^ST CROSS, P.N.S.LAYOUT, SUBBANNAPALYA, M.S.NAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560043.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. M. RUKMINI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O MUNIKAPINAPPA

¶14

SRI M. MURTHY MAJOR IN AGE S/O MUNIKAPINAPPA

¶15

SRI M.NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O MUNIKAPINAPPA

¶16

SRI M. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O MUNIKAPINAPPA

¶17

NOS.1 TO 4 RESIDING AT NO.116, A BLOCK, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560024.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47160 MFA No. 4100 of 2024

¶19

SRI MUNIMARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O KURUDU MARIYAPPA (MUNIGA)

¶20

SMT. BYRAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O MUNIMARIYAPPA

¶21

SMT. M. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, D/O MUNIMARYAPPA

¶22

SRI RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O MUNIMARIYAPPA

¶23

SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O KURUDUMARIYAPPA (MUNIGA)

¶24

SMT. SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O MUNIYAPPA

¶25

SRI HEMANTH KUMAR M, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O MUNIYAPPA

¶26

SMT. M. KAVITHA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS D/O MUNIYAPPA

¶27

SRI KEMPARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O KURUDU MARIYAPPA (MUNIGA)

¶28

SMT. KARAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O KEMPARAJU

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47160 MFA No. 4100 of 2024

¶30

SRI SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O KEMPARAJU

¶31

SRI RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O KEMPARAJU

¶32

NOS.5 TO 16 ARE RESIDING AT REDDIHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶33

SRI SURESH KUAMR B.T. S/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI MANDURU POST BANGALORE EAST TALUK

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. CHOKKA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶36

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.243/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶37

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned

¶41

counsel for caveator-respondent No.1.

¶42

The impugned order challenged before this Court is

¶43

rejection of I.A.No.1 filed to restrain defendant Nos.1 to 17

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:47160 MFA No. 4100 of 2024

¶46

from alienating the property. The Trial Court granted the exparte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff on 05.12.2018.

¶47

The defendant No.18 appeared and filed written statement on becoming party to the suit contending that he had already purchased the property on 21.09.2017 and contended that when already the property has been sold, the question of restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 17 does not arise. The Trial Court also taken note of the said fact while assigning reasons. However, made an observation that document of sale was prepared on stamp paper of Rs.512/- and not paid the entire stamp duty. But, on perusal of the records, learned counsel brought to notice of this Court, when the plaintiff has already paid the deficit stamp duty in view of the order passed by the Trial Court, the observation made by the Trial Court in paragraph No.8 is erroneous.

¶48

The other reason given by the Trial Court is with regard to ready and willingness to perform his part of contract and the same ought not to have been discussed at the time of considering the I.A. and the reason assigned by the Trial Court

¶49

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:47160 MFA No. 4100 of 2024

¶50

that no stamp duty is paid and was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract is erroneous. However, taking note of the fact that already property was sold in favour of defendant No.18, the appellant is given liberty to seek appropriate relief against the defendant No.18, since already there is a sale deed, even prior to filing of the suit dated 21.09.2017. No doubt, there is an agreement of sale dated 10.07.2017 and subsequent sale in favour of the defendant No.18 is on 21.09.2017, the Court has to consider the right based on the sale agreement of the appellant/plaintiff dated 10.07.2017 and also take note of the fact that if any multiplicity of proceedings, it will cause injustice to the parties. Hence, keeping this aspect in view, the Trial Court to consider the application to be filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief against the defendant No.18

¶51

Accordingly, the miscellaneous first appeal is disposed of.

¶52

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶53

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Sri D. Sudhakar v. Smt. M.Rukmini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D. Sudhakar v. Smt. M.Rukmini

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

The Esi Corporation Vs M/S Renram Fashions India Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Rajeev Chandrasekhar Vs Mr Sachin Rao

H Shanker Shetty Vs Vijayanagar Club

Smt. Saramma Vs Union of India

Smt Patalamma Vs Sri Anjanappa

Ramakrishna Dutta Trust (Regd) Vs Smt Shantamma