Appeals against interlocutory orders in a declaration and injunction suit over 14 acres 29 guntas. The High Court set aside the trial court's order making the alienation injunction absolute, confined relief to the unsold extent, allowed vacating of injunction, and left the defendants' injunction application for fresh consideration.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6174 OF 2024 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6175 OF 2024
IN MFA No. 6174/2024
BETWEEN:
SMT K.N.MADHU W/O. CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O KADAVIGERE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 125
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:39350 MFA No. 6174 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6175 of 2024
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/O HEMDORE, GOWDAGERE HOBLI SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572 135
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 9 ARE R/O BRAMHASANDRA GOLLARAHATTI KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572 125
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRANESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1- R4 V/O/D 23/09/2024 NOTICE TO R5 TO R9 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA 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.1 IN OS.NO. 233/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
IN MFA NO. 6175/2024
BETWEEN:
SMT K.N.MADHU
W/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O KADAVIGERE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572 125.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/O HEMDORE, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572 135
NC: 2024:KHC:39350 MFA No. 6174 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6175 of 2024
S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 9 ARE R/O BRAMHASANDRA, GOLLARAHATTI, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572 125
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRANESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1- R4 V/O/D 23/09/2024 NOTICE TO R5 TO R9 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA 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.2 IN OS.NO. 233/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, REJECTING THE IA.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 (A) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.1 and 3 in O.S.No.233/2023 dated 03.08.2024 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira the defendant is before this court. MFA.No.6174/2024 arises out of I.A.No.1 and 3 and MFA. No.6175/2024 arises out of I.A.No.2.
declaration and injunction, the suit schedule property has to be necessarily preserved as the plaintiff had made out a primafacie case and there is balance of convenience in his favour and the court had allowed the I.A.No.1 and dismissed I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant No.1 and as far as I.A.No.2 is concerned, the court has not granted injunction. The court observed that defendant could not make out a case to show that they are in possession of the property. Aggrieved there by the defendant is before this court by way of these two appeals.
drawn the attention of the court to different sale deeds that are executed by Sri Krishnamurthy. According to him suppressing all these facts they have filed the suit and further after the written statement is filed they have filed the petition seeking amendment of the plaint and the same is pending consideration before the court. Learned counsel submits that the court had not considered the evidence available on record and the fact that right from the year 1997 when several sale deeds are executed, in the year 2023 when he comes before the court suppressing all the facts the court ought not to have granted
NC: 2024:KHC:39350 MFA No. 6174 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6175 of 2024
injunction to the plaintiff who has come before the court with suppression of the material facts. It is submitted that the court had failed to consider the application in its proper perspective.
1 ILR 2014 KAR 6025
perused the entire material on record. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of 14 acres 29 guntas. According to the plaintiff they have succeeded the property from one Krishnamurthy who is none other than the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and father of defendants Nos. 2 to 5. Initially the court had granted the injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property. The defendants have filed their written statement. It is categorically stated that what are all the document right from the year 1997 that are executed by Krishnamurthy in respect of 10 acres of land is not binding on them and the plaintiff has sought for amendment of the plaint which is yet to be decided. At this point of time looking at the sale deed in respect of 10 acres 4 guntas of land and the amendment that is not allowed so far this court is of the view that the order that is passed by the court in I.A.No.1 restraining the defendants from alienating the property has to be confined to 4 acres 29 guntas but not in respect of entire
extent of 14 acres 29 guntas. Hence I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction restraining the defendants from
NC: 2024:KHC:39350 MFA No. 6174 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6175 of 2024
alienating the property is dismissed and the application filed by plaintiff i.e., I.A.No.3 is allowed.
is at liberty to move an appropriate application and the court notwithstanding the order that is already passed in I.A.No.2 shall independently decide the application within a time bound manner and as expeditiously as possible. If the amendment is allowed, the plaintiff is at liberty to move an appropriate application.
Accordingly the following,
ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:39350 MFA No. 6174 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6175 of 2024
notwithstanding the order that is already passed in I.A.No.2 shall independently decide the application within a time bound manner as expeditiously as possible.
iii. If the amendment application is allowed, thereafter the plaintiff is at liberty to move an appropriate application.
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
2 issues framed by the court
Should the interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property be modified given prior sale deeds by Krishnamurthy covering part of the land?
Can the defendants seek injunction against the plaintiffs in a suit filed by the plaintiffs?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Shakuntalamma & others Vs. Smt. Kanthamma and otherApplied¶7
ILR 2014 KAR 6025 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt K.N.Madhu W/o Channegowda
Smt.Gangamma W/o Late Krishnamurthy
Sri.Muddarangaiah S/o Late Krishnamurthy
Sri.Somanatha S/o Late Krishnamurthy
Sri.Manjunatha S/o Late Krishnamurthy
Sri.Srinivasa and family (Respondents 5 to 9)
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
