Dismissed

Sri Umesh H R v. Sri Narayanappa

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2024MFA/4446/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal against a trial court's order of status quo in a property suit. The judgment held that due to a dispute over the identity and existence of the property, the trial court correctly refused interim relief and directed parties to maintain the status quo.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; direction given to the trial court to dispose of the appeal ASAP.

Sri Umesh H R Vs Sri Narayanappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42357 MFA No. 4446 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4446 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI UMESH H R S/O SRI. RAMESH C AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.153, SRI. CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA, 6T CROSS, JANATHA COLONY, HULIMAVU, B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI MITHUN G A, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O KUNTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. SURESH KUMAR S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.116, 4TH CROSS, JANATHA COLONY, HULIMAVU, B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B C SRIRAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:42357 MFA No. 4446 of 2024

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2022 IN OS.NO.1375/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 05.06.2024 passed in O.S.No.1375/2022 on I.A.No.1/2022 by the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶24

respective parties.

¶25

The main contention of the appellant/plaintiff

¶26

before the Trial Court that he had purchased the property

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42357 MFA No. 4446 of 2024

¶28

from one Murali Mohan in the year 2020. Originally, the property bearing Sy.No.14 situated at Hulimavu village, Begur holbi, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 14 guntas and the same is the ancestral property of Ramaiah @ Ramappa s/o Munivenkatappa. The claimants who are residents of Hulimavu have sought for re-grant of service inam land in Sy.No.27 of Nyanappanahalli and Sy.No.53 of Devarachikkanahalli village attached to Neeraganti office before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru against the State and others which came to be allowed on 01.10.1995 holding that application of claimants are within the appointed date and hence, the Tahsildar has accepted their claim for re-grant and that the lands are free from encumbrance except 14 guntas in Sy.No.38 of Hulimavu village which has been resumed to Government for alienation in contravention of Section 5(3) of K.V.O Act, 1961 and the Tahsildar has further stated in his order that in the amendment to Section 7(3) of K.V.O. Act 1961 (Act 13, 1978) provisions has been made for re-grant of Service Inam land so resumed to Government to hakdars

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42357 MFA No. 4446 of 2024

¶30

or to their legal heirs and hence,t he service inam lands together with the lands resumed to Government has been granted to the hakdars jointly as listed therein as per their possession and enjoyment.

¶31

The original owner Ramaiah @ Ramappa S/o late Munivenkatappa is also one of the claimant in the aforesaid case before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. In the said order, the Tahsildar also noted that re-grant lands are subject for non-alienation for a period of 15 years and said order of re-grant is without prejudice to the tenancy right if any. Therefore, based on the order of Tahsildar, Ramaiah @ Ramappa S/o late Munivenkatappa for his domestic and other legal necessities has alienated the aforesaid property to one Murali Mohan s/o Muniyellappa who is the vendor of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 01.02.2019. On purchasing of the said property bearing Sy.No.14 from Ramaiah @ Ramappa, katha has been transferred in the name of Murali Mohan and the said Murali Mohan formed sites and

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42357 MFA No. 4446 of 2024

¶33

sold the schedule property bearing vacant portion of site No.3, Assessment No.14, Katha No.14 which is morefully described as schedule property to the appellant vide sale deed dated 08.06.2020 and also he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶34

It is also contention of the plaintiff that after purchase of the suit schedule property, all revenue records were transferred in his name and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. One Narayanappa S/o late Kuntappa and his son Suresh Kumar i.e., the respondents came near the suit schedule property on 10.02.2022 by bringing JCB and immediately, the appellant called the police and informed about the same and police arrive at the spot and stopped JCB and directed the said Narayanappa to come to the police station along with the documents. The said Narayanappa and Suresh Kumar did not go to the police station. Again on 16.02.2022, the respondents came to the suit schedule property and caused obstruction. Hence, without any other alternative,

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42357 MFA No. 4446 of 2024

¶36

the appellant filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction, inter alia , sought for temporary injunction.

¶37

The said suit was resisted by the respondents by filing counter claim claiming that the property to the extent of 14½ guntas was allotted in the very same survey number i.e., Sy.No.14. The counsel also would vehemently contend that when no phodi work was done and there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the property, the Trial Court while dismissing the application for temporary injunction, rightly comes to the conclusion that the matter requires trial. It is also the contention of the defendants that there is no existence of suit schedule property as claimed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that it is not possible to conclude that the said document is a bogus and created document as contended by the defendants and there are grant in favour of two Ramaiahs’ i.e., one is Ramaiah s/o Munivenkatappa and another one is Ramaiah s/o Kuntappa. Thus, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the property of both

¶38

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42357 MFA No. 4446 of 2024

¶39

the parties are different and issue is with regard to rival claim made by both the parties and also there is no prima facie material with regard to identification of the suit schedule property, it is appropriate to direct both the parties to maintain status quo . Being aggrieved by the said order, the appeal is filed before this Court.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶41

would vehemently contend that when the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the claim made by both the parties are distinct properties, ought not to have granted the relief of status quo . The counsel contends that in view of the order of status quo , he was unable to put up construction and continue with the construction. Hence, it requires interference. The counsel also submits that to make the counter claim, the defendants have not produced any documents and when they are not claiming right over the suit schedule property, there cannot be any such order.

¶42

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42357 MFA No. 4446 of 2024

¶43

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶44

respondents contend that there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the property and the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that after purchase, the khatha has been transferred in the name of the father of the respondents.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶46

the respective parties, it discloses that both are claiming right in respect of Sy.No.14. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff claims that property was allotted in favour of one Ramaiah and the said Ramaiah in turn sold the property in favour of Murali Mohan who is the vendor of the plaintiff and site No.3 was purchased from the said Murali Mohan and description of the suit schedule property also given. On the other hand, it is the contention of the counsel for the respondents that property totally measuring 2 acres 6 guntas and out of that 14½ guntas was allotted in favour of Ramaiah s/o Kuntappa. Both

¶47

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42357 MFA No. 4446 of 2024

¶48

counsel contend that allottees are Ramaiah but their father names are different i.e., Munivenkatappa and Kuntappa. It is important to note that there is no any phodi work; property also not converted; there is no plan for construction of the building by the plaintiff; real dispute is with regard to the identification of the property. Unless, the property is demarcated and identified, the question of granting the interim relief does not arise. No doubt, there is a dispute with regard to the existence of property and the same has to be considered only during the course of trial and not at this stage while granting the relief of temporary injunction. Hence, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that both parties have to maintain status quo since there is a dispute with regard to identity of the property when both are claiming very same survey number. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in passing an order of status quo and if any construction is made, it will change the nature of the property. Hence, no grounds are made to reverse the finding of the Trial Court and it does not

¶49

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:42357 MFA No. 4446 of 2024

¶50

require interference. However, the Trial Court is given direction to dispose of the matter as early as possible as

¶51

there is an order of status quo .

¶52

With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.

¶53

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶54

Sri Umesh H R v. Sri Narayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Umesh H R v. Sri Narayanappa

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

Mrs Cheluvamma Vs Nil

Vysya Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Vs R. Nagaraja

Yaragatupalli Radha Kumar Reddy Vs M Rukminiamma

Smt. Deepika S., Vs the State of Karnataka

Union of India Vs Sri R Raghuva Reddy

Smt Bhagyalakshmi E Vs Sri Adinarayana Swamy