Cross first appeals against a decree for permanent injunction over property in Bengaluru. Both parties had filed other suits, including for possession and specific performance. Holding the appeals did not survive, the court disposed of them and directed pending suits to be decided independently of the injunction judgment.
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 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2011 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2011 (INJ)
IN RFA NO.177/2011
BETWEEN:
D. SAKAMMA, W/O SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT M/S HANUMAN FOUNDRY, NO.1, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAGADI CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 010.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.V. DHANANJAY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by C AND: HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT SMT. B.T. KEMPAMMA @ MANI, OF W/O H. RANGE GOWDA, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.335, 16TH CROSS, PIPELINE ROAD (IN A PORTION OF SITE NO. 44 FORMED OUT OF SURVEY NUMBER 84/10) SUNKADAKATTE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, SRIGANDADAKAVAL, BENGALURU - 560 091.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.N. RAJESESTS, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W, O-41, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:28.09.2010 PASSED IN O.S.8988/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE V-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA NO.307/2011
BETWEEN:
B.T. KEMPAMMA @ MANI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O SRI. H. RANGE GOWDA, R/AT NO. 335, 16TH CROSS, PIPE LINE ROAD, SUNKADAKATTE, VISWANEEDAM POST, SRIGANDHADAKAVAL, BANGALORE - 560 091.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.N. RAJESESTS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. D. SAKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O SHIVALINGAIAH, R/AT M/S HANUMAN FOUNDRY, NO.1, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAGADI CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.V. DHANANJAY, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W, O-41, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:28.09.2010 PASSED IN O.S.8988/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE V-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent.
RFA.No.177/2011 does not dispute the fact that there is a suit
for possession filed against him in O.S.No.2882/2021 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
RFA.No.307/2011, who is respondent in RFA.No.177/2011 submits that though there is a decree for injunction in his favour, he has filed the appeal challenging certain observations made by the Court in the said judgment, which is decreed in his favour.
submits that he has filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.6714/2023 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore and same is pending.
injunction suit, this Court is of the view that the appeals in RFA.No.177/2011 and RFA.No.307/2011 do not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
PHM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the cross appeals arising from a bare injunction suit survive when both parties have filed comprehensive suits over the same property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D. Sakamma
B.T. Kempamma @ Mani
Anant Ramanath Hegde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
