Allowed

Smt. Lakshmamma v. Sri. P. Y. Rajendrappa

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2024MFA/7646/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed the first appeal against the rejection of a temporary injunction application. The Court held the lower court's refusal unsustainable due to fraud allegations and prior interim stay. Parties were directed to maintain status-quo and the trial court was ordered to conclude the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissed; parties directed to maintain status-quo till suit disposal; trial court directed to dispose suit within six months.

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Sri. P. Y. Rajendrappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:26770 MFA No. 7646 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7646 OF 2017 (CPC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O SRI SIDDALAKKAIAH, R/AT GULAPURA VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 132.

¶6

…APPELLANT

¶7

[BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶8

AND:

¶9

SRI P.Y. RAJENDRAPPA, S/O SRI P. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. D.V. SHAKUNTALA, W/O SRI P.Y. RAJENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.20, 2^ND CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI LAYOUT, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU - 560 021.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

[BY SRI T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH)]

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.238/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, DISMISSING I.A.NO.2 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:26770 MFA No. 7646 of 2017

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Challenging order dated 20.09.2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, in O.S.no.238/2017 on I.A.no.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (' CPC ' for short), this appeal is filed.

¶22

Sri Shankar Reddy C., learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant was plaintiff in suit filed for declaration of title based on registered sale deed dated 23.11.2000 etc. In said suit, plaintiff had filed I.A.no.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. While I.A.no.3 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction to restrain defendants from alienating or encumbering suit schedule property. On consideration, trial Court had passed impugned common order on I.As.no.2 and 3 by allowing I.A.no.3, rejected I.A.no.2 on wholly untenable reasons.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:26770 MFA No. 7646 of 2017

¶25

It was submitted, plaintiff had purchased suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 23.11.2000 from one Smt.Gangarasamma. For agricultural purposes, loan was obtained form VSSN Bank. During year 2005, defendant no.1, who was then working as Bank Manager at Vysya Bank, approached plaintiff on pretext of assisting in clearing of loan and took her to Sub-Registrar's Office and fraudulently got sale deed executed on 21.07.2005. Based on said sale deed, when defendant no.1 sought to interfere with plaintiff's possession over suit schedule property, plaintiff enquired and gathered knowledge of fraud played by defendant no.1. Police complaint was registered and criminal prosecution initiated which was presently at stage of trial.

¶26

It was submitted that completion of investigation and initiation of criminal prosecution against defendant no.1 coupled with plaintiff's assertion in plaint about fraudulent alienation as well as statement by defendants in complaint filed before police on 27.03.2017, wherein they had stated that plaintiff was authorized to look after suit schedule property, would indicate plaintiff being in possession of suit schedule property. Such being case, without any proper explanation

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:26770 MFA No. 7646 of 2017

¶29

based merely on ground that recitals in sale deed would indicate transfer of possession in favour of defendants, trial Court refused to grant of order of temporary injunction. In view of above, finding by trial Court was untenable and sought to interference. It was further submitted, trial Court had initially granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 11.05.2017. After appearance and filing of objections by defendants, trial Court under impugned order had rejected application. Since same was untenable, counsel sought to allow appeal.

¶30

On other hand, Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for respondents sought to oppose appeal. It was submitted that even as per plaintiff fraudulent act alleged occurred in year 2005, whereas present suit filed in year 2017, would be beyond period of limitation. It was further submitted recitals in registered sale deed indicated delivery of possession by plaintiff to defendants. Under such circumstances, claim by plaintiff to be in possession of suit schedule property would be without any basis. It was submitted that trial Court on proper appreciation had passed impugned order and same did not call for interference.

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26770 MFA No. 7646 of 2017

¶32

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned

¶33

order.

¶34

From above, it is seen, main ground of challenge is conclusion arrived at by trial Court was contrary to material on record. Therefore, point that arises for consideration is:

¶35

"Whether order impugned suffers from untenability and calls for interference?"

¶36

Perusal of impugned order shows trial Court had

¶37

adverted to pleadings and contentions of both parties, framed proper points for consideration and thereafter passed order impugned by assigning reasons. Main ground for refusal to grant order of temporary injunction is that sale deed dated 21.07.2005 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants contained recital about handing over possession. Trial Court observes that as against said material, plaintiff had not produced any documents to show her possession. It also refers to Record of Rights produced by defendants from years 2008 till 2017, wherein their names were mutated. Though under normal circumstances, registered sale deed would attract presumption and delivery of possession as per recitals would be

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:26770 MFA No. 7646 of 2017

¶40

prima facie material to indicate possession, it is seen that plaintiff in present case has alleged very sale deed dated 21.07.2005 to be result of fraudulent act.

¶41

Indeed whether it is so would be matter for trial. At same time, it is not in dispute that criminal prosecution has been initiated against defendant no.1 and same is at stage of trial. It is also seen trial Court had initially granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction and though application was rejected by trial Court on 20.09.2017, this Court by order dated 07.11.2017 had reintroduced order of status-quo. Said interim order has been in force even after matter was admitted on 10.04.2018. Thus, interim order directing parties to maintain status-quo has been in vogue for seven years.

¶42

Under such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct parties to proceed for trial by maintaining interim order. It is also seen that in paragraph no.28 of written statement, defendants admitted to have authorized plaintiff's husband to look after suit schedule property. There is also admission about defendant no.2 having filed police complaint on 27.03.2017 against them for causing damages to pump-set

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:26770 MFA No. 7646 of 2017

¶44

and stated to have been placed before learned Trial Judge. Said material would prima facie indicate plaintiff being in possession. These materials have not been adverted to by learned Trial Judge. On said ground, order impugned would suffers from untenability. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct parties to co-operate for early conclusion of suit and maintain status-

¶45

quo till disposal of suit. Hence, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. Appeal is allowed.

¶48

ii. Impugned order dated 20.09.2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, in O.S.no.238/2017 on I.A.no.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC stands disposed of directing parties to maintain status-quo as per interim order granted by this Court on 07.11.2017 and 10.04.2018, till disposal of suit.

¶49

iii. Both parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of suit.

¶50

iv. Trial Court is directed to dispose of suit as far as possible within a period of six months.

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:26770 MFA No. 7646 of 2017

¶52

¶53

v. It is clarified that observations and findings of trial Court in impugned order as well as by this Court in present order would be confined to interim stage and would not bind trial Court at time of passing final judgment.

¶54

vi. In view of disposal of appeal, pending applications are also disposed of.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

GRD

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Smt. Lakshmamma v. Sri. P. Y. Rajendrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lakshmamma v. Sri. P. Y. Rajendrappa

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 Commissioner Vs Smt Shantamma

K M Manchegowda Vs Sri Manchaiah

Sri Narayanan Ananthan Vs Sri Harish

Mrs Farhath Tasneem Vs Mr Syed Saifulla

Sri Venkatarannaiah Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri v K Ramasetty Vs Mr.Mohammed Semiulla