Partition suit where defendant No.5 sold tribunal-granted joint tenanted land to defendants 11 and 12 before suit filing. Trial court allowed purchasers' interim injunction and rejected plaintiff's no-alienation application. The High Court found the trial court had weighed the injunction parameters correctly and dismissed the appeal.
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:32695 MFA No. 4486 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. 4486 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LALITHA POOJARTHI, W/O GOPALA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT THIRMALOTTU HOUSE, NITTE VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI - 574 110.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O SADNANDA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT DARKAS HOUSE (KANASU), BAJAGOLI POST, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI-574122.
D/O THIMMAPPA SUVARNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT THIRUMALOTTU HOUSE, NITTE VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI-574110.
MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.575001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. CHANDRAKANTH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R11 AND R12; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.07.2024, NOTICE TO R1 TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 104 READ WITH ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 5 IN OS.NO.148/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.148/2022 dated 23.11.2023, the plaintiff/appellant is before this Court. The plaintiff had filed a said suit seeking partition of A-schedule property into three equal shares with reference to good and bad soil on the basis of the market value of the respective properties and allot and delivery 1/3rd such share to the plaintiff.
Thimmappa Suvarna and Lalitha Poojarthi as they have jointly obtained the suit schedule property under Chala-Geni right under one Sadhu Shetty Meldottu, Nitte and the said properties were in joint possession and enjoyment of the said three persons. Mennu Poojarthi, Thimmappa Suvarna died in several years ago and Lalitha Poojarthi is the plaintiff in the above suit and Mennu Poojarthi had five children they are defendants No.1, 5, 6, 7 and Sadananda, among them Sadananda died and defendants No.2 to 4 are his wife and children. Thimappa Suvarna had two children, they are defendants No.8 and 9 and the wife of Thimappa Suvarna also died.
NC: 2024:KHC:32695 MFA No. 4486 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:32695 MFA No. 4486 of 2024
the property by defendants No.11 and 12 and filed an application seeking a direction not to alienate and the Court has come to the conclusion that the defendant had made out a prima facie case and if the plaintiff interfere with their possession, it would cause irreparable loss to the defendants/purchasers and it would also cause inconvenience
and accordingly, the interlocutory application filed by the defendants No.11 and 12 under I.A.No.5 is allowed and the plaintiff is restrained from interfering with the possession of the defendants No.11 and 12. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this Court.
case, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit itself. It is submitted that admittedly the grant is in favour of Kutti Poojary who has sold the property in favour of defendants No.11 and 12 by taking an amount of Rs.21,72,000/-. It is submitted that having taken the amount, the possession was delivered and they have been in possession of the property. It is submitted that while seeking injunction, the defendants have already made out a prima facie case and the trial Court had rightly granted injunction and no grounds are made out seeking interference with the well considered order passed by the Court.
has filed a written statement and has stated that it is his property, he is the absolute owner and he had sold the property in favour of defendants No.11 and 12. Defendants No.11 and 12 in support of their case, have filed the registered sale deed and the written statement filed by the defendants shows that the possession is delivered to them. As far as plaintiff is concerned except stating that it is granted for the whole family, no other document is placed.
NC: 2024:KHC:32695 MFA No. 4486 of 2024
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .
Pending I.As, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff, claiming a share in property granted by the Land Reforms Tribunal in the name of defendant No.5, could resist an injunction restraining her from interfering with purchasers' pos
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Lalitha Poojarthi
Smt. Susheela
Ramani
Naveena
Savitha
Kutti Poojary @ Raghunath Poojary
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
