Dismissed

Smt S Bhudevi v. Smt Padma Shree @ Padma G

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024MFA/5317/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff mother-in-law challenged an interim order granting her daughter-in-law, a defendant in occupation of the second floor, access to locked common areas like terrace, sump and toilets, and permission to install CCTV cameras. The High Court held no prejudice was caused since the plaintiff did not reside in the building and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt S Bhudevi Vs Smt Padma Shree @ Padma G — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:35557 MFA No. 5317 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5317 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SMT. S. BHUDEVI, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN, W/O. LATE B.M. KRISHNA, R/AT NO.29, ‘A’ 2ND STREET, TASKER TOWN, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 051. REP BY HER SPA HOLDER DR. B. CHANDRA MOULI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE B.M.KRISHNA, R/AT NO.684, 10TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. PADMA SHREE @ PADMA G., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O. LATE GOPALAKRISHNAPPA, W/O. SRI. B. GANESH KISHAN, NO.29,II FLOOR, ‘A’ 2ND STREET, TASKER TOWN,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:35557 MFA No. 5317 of 2024

¶16

SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 051.

¶17

ALSO TO BE SERVE AT NO.17, K.S.COLONY, R.K. 2ND BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 028.

¶18

SRI. B. GANESH KISHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE B.M. KRISHNA, NO.684, 7^TH MAIN, 10^TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 076.

¶19

ALSO TO BE SERVE AT NO.29, ‘A’ 2^ND STREET, TESKER TOWN, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 051.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. AISHWARYA R.,ADVOCATE FOR CAVEAT RESPONDENTS)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.7 IN OS.NO.8286/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-11, PARTLY ALLOWING THE IA.NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. R/W SECTIONS 19, 26 AND 28 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35557 MFA No. 5317 of 2024

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.7 dated 03.08.2024 in O.S.No.8286/2018 by the VI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶27

It is the case that the plaintiff is the mother-in-law and defendant No.1 is the daughter-in-law and defendant No.2 is the son of the plaintiff. The relief that is sought in the suit is to grant mandatory injunction directing the defendants to quit, vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit B schedule property to the plaintiff. The suit is filed on 17.11.2018. The Trial Court had granted an order of status quo. Thereafter, on 29.05.2024 the matter is posted for final arguments. At that stage, the present two applications are filed i.e., I.A.Nos.7 and 8. I.A.No.8 is filed for installation of CCTV cameras in the premises and I.A.No.7 is filed to direct the plaintiff to allow access to the common areas in the suit schedule property by opening the locks of the common areas/common utilities i.e., 1, Roof/terrace of the building

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:35557 MFA No. 5317 of 2024

¶30

situated in the fourth floor, 2, Utility area in the basement, 3, Sump tank in the basement 4, Common toilet in the basement.

¶31

The objections are filed by the plaintiff stating that now, the suit itself is going to be disposed off and at this point of time only to drag on the proceedings these kind of applications are filed. The defendant has no right to live in the said property. The defendant, being a trespasser, is not entitled for the relief that is sought. According to the plaintiff, the CCTV cameras are already been installed.

¶32

The Trial Court by order impugned had allowed I.A.Nos.7 and 8 filed by the defendants. While allowing the said applications, the Trial Court had observed that the defendant No.1 has filed written statement and by way of amendment she had sought for counterclaim under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act directing the plaintiff from dispossessing defendant No.1 from the suit B schedule property. After framing of issues, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 has been completed. At that stage, the present applications are filed. The Trial Court observed that there is no dispute about the fact that

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35557 MFA No. 5317 of 2024

¶34

defendant No.1 is residing along with her minor son. Admittedly, the plaintiff and her two sons are not residing in the property. It is also an admitted fact that the CCTV cameras are installed by the plaintiff which is in her control. To the said CCTV cameras defendant No.1 have no access. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has locked common areas/utility areas such as terrace of the building, sump in the basement and common toilets in the basement. The photographs produced by defendant No.1 would show that those areas are locked by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 is residing with her son elsewhere, she has to necessarily access to terrace floor for the purpose of cleaning and monitoring water tank and also a dish antenna. Defendant No.1 needs to access the terrace floor so as to maintain the water pipes etc. Utility area and sump area are also necessary as she is using the water from the sump. If there is any damage or leakage, she needs to access those areas. Therefore, the common areas access sought by defendant No.1 is reasonable. The Trial Court has also observed that the plaintiff had disputed the right of the defendant No.1 to reside in the said building. The Trial Court felt that whether she has the right to reside in the said building or not shall be

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35557 MFA No. 5317 of 2024

¶36

decided by the Court during the course of trial. Further, when it comes to the CCTV cameras, the Court felt that though the CCTV cameras are installed by the plaintiff and which defendant

¶37

No.1 has no access, she can install the CCTV cameras and accordingly, the Trial Court by impugned order had allowed these applications and permitted defendant No.1 to access to common areas and directed the plaintiff to open the locks within 3 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and also permitted to put up CCTV cameras in suit schedule A and B properties subject to result of the suit on merits. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property is a property purchased by the mother of the plaintiff and it is not a joint family property and it is an exclusive property belonging to the plaintiff. He submits that the daughter-in-law cannot have any right in the said property. He submits that the suit is filed in the year 2018 and in the year 2019, there is an order of statusquo and in the MFA. There is an order by this Court to dispose off the suit as expeditiously as possible. He submits that only to drag on the proceedings the present application is filed. It is

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:35557 MFA No. 5317 of 2024

¶41

stated that the matter is posted for final arguments on 29.05.2024. At that point of time, this application came to be filed. He submits that the son of defendant No.1 is in fact damaging the property and she cannot seek for such a relief as granted by the Court at this fag end that too she being a trespasser. It is submitted that the appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants submits that the defendants are residing in the second floor of the building. The first floor and the ground floor are vacant. Nobody is occupying the said building and the plaintiff is residing with her son. When she is residing in the said building and whether her entitlement to the property or whether she can retain her possession has to be decided by the Trial Court after a full fledged trial and till the suit is disposed off and an order is passed by the Trial Court, she is entitled to have access to all the common areas and utilities. It is submitted that she has been put to lot of inconvenience and hardship by the plaintiff where the power supply is disconnected and she has been facing problems with water supply. Now, the sump is locked by the plaintiff. It is submitted

¶43

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:35557 MFA No. 5317 of 2024

¶44

that in this rainy season, if there is no access to defendant No.1

¶45

to reach the terrace and because of the leakage and other issues, it will be difficult for her to stay in the building. She has been facing all these hardships from a long time and in fact, she has been getting the water from outside. Now, in view of her health conditions, she is not in a position to do the things as she was doing all these years as such she has filed an application before the Court. Learned counsel submits that by allowing these applications, no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not residing in the said building. It is submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court is a well considered one and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The undisputed facts are that the defendants are staying in the second floor of the building. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the property. The property is purchased by her mother and later she has acquired the said property and she has constructed a house and defendant No.1, who is none other than her daughter-inlaw had trespassed into the property. She has no right to the said property and she had filed the present suit seeking the

¶47

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:35557 MFA No. 5317 of 2024

¶48

relief of mandatory injunction directing the daughter-in-law to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit B schedule property to the plaintiff. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff is not residing in the said building. She is staying along with her son. According to the daughter-in-law, it is her matrimonial home and she has every right to reside in the said building and she had also filed a counter claim in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Now, the Trial Court, after a full fledged trial has to decide whether the defendant No.1 has any right to live in the said property. Whether the defendant No.1 is the trespasser, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the plaint. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this application is filed at the fag end of the trial. When the suit is of the Year 2018, the application is filed in the year 2024, just because the application is filed at the fag end of the trial, that itself cannot be a ground for the Trial Court to dismiss the application. As long as the defendant is staying in the said premises, she has to have the access to all the common areas and to all the utilities. Now, by allowing these applications, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not residing in

¶49

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:35557 MFA No. 5317 of 2024

¶50

the building. When once the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendants are not entitled, appropriate orders will be passed. But as long as she is in occupation of the property exclusively in the second floor, she needs to have the access to all the common amenities. In view of the disputes between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law it cannot be said that by granting access to the common areas, prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. This Court is not able to appreciate the contentions placed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court had rightly allowed the applications and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order. Hence, This Court is passing the following,

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶53

ii. All I.As., in the appeal, shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶55

¶56

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Smt S Bhudevi v. Smt Padma Shree @ Padma G

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt S Bhudevi v. Smt Padma Shree @ Padma G

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G K Mahesh Vs S Boraiah

Jayamma Vs Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Smt T Susheela Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Vijaya Aditya Kumar Vs Smt. Bhavani N

Sri Srinivasa M Vs Smt Sowmya a N Gowda

The Managing Director Vs Odhegowda