Dismissed

Smt Lakshmidevamma v. Smt Bhagyamma

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024WP/11140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal to grant an ex-parte interim injunction. The Court held that no error was committed when the trial court directed notice, as the petitioners failed to place material evidence of encroachment before the trial court to justify extraordinary relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the trial court is permitted to independently appreciate pleadings and materials after due service of notice.

Smt Lakshmidevamma Vs Smt Bhagyamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20004 WP No. 11140 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 11140 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O LATE KEMPANNA,

¶8

SRI. ANANDA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE KEMPANNA,

¶9

SMT. SUKANYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O LATE KEMPANNA,

¶10

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. K.N. AMBUJA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O LATE KEMPANNA,

¶13

SMT. BHARATHI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O LATE KEMPANNA,

¶14

SRI. MANJUNATH N.K, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE KEMPANNA, ALL ARE RES AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI AND TALUK

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20004 WP No. 11140 of 2024

¶16

BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. SHYAMAL MAJUMDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SMT. BHAGYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA RES AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI AND TALUK BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶21

SRI. N.V. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE VEERAPPA, RES AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI AND TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE BY WAY OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/03/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED ON IA NO. I AND II BY THE VIII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE IN OS NO. 259/2024 TO THE EXTENT REJECTING THE AD-INTERIM TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AS PRAYED IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION (IA NO. I AND II) (ANNEXURE- J AND K) UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC FILED IN OS NO. 259/2024 AND ETC.,

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:20004 WP No. 11140 of 2024

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶27

HEARING, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2024, passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S.No.529/2024 by the C/C VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, the plaintiffs therein have preferred this writ petition.

¶30

The case of the petitioners is that they are the

¶31

owners of the schedule 'A' property to the plaint and the defendants are trying to illegally encroach upon the said property and also alienate the property belonging to them. Inspite of producing all the necessary documents along with the plaint, the trial Court did not grant an Ex-parte interim order and has ordered notice. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:20004 WP No. 11140 of 2024

¶34

The issue that arise for consideration in the instant

¶35

writ petition, is that whether the petitioners have made out a case for granting an Ex-parte interim order without issuance of notice to the opposite party.

¶36

According to the petitioners, they became the owners of 1 Acre 10 Guntas of land in Survey No.68/3 of Harohalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, by virtue of the Partition Deed dated 08.07.1999. They have produced a copy of the said Partition Deed. The said fact is also reflected in the Mutation as well as the RTC produced by the petitioners. The petitioners have also produced a copy of the conversion order by which 2 Acres 19 Guntas of land in Survey No.68/3 has been converted for non-agricultural purposes. It is submitted by the petitioners that it includes 1 Acre 10 Guntas of their land. Thereafter, the petitioners have sold 1 Acre of land by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 24.10.2007. It is submitted that they retained 10 Guntas of land. It is contended that the said 10 Guntas of land is now sought to be encroached upon by the respondents.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20004 WP No. 11140 of 2024

¶38

However, the petitioners have not produced the relevant khata and the tax paid receipts. In the absence of the same, the trial Court is of the opinion that it is advisable to hear the defendants in the original suit and pass orders thereafter.

¶39

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any error in the order passed by the trial Court. Under normal circumstances, as per Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC before granting an injunction, the Court is required to direct notice to the other party or to the opposite party. Only in extraordinary cases under the circumstances mentioned in Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, the Court will grant an Ex-parte interim injunction. The petitioners have not placed any material before this Court to show encroachment of their property. The Court will have to consider the balance of convenience while granting an interim order.

¶40

It is needless to state that a person cannot sell any property which does not belong to him and even if it is

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:20004 WP No. 11140 of 2024

¶43

sold, the purchaser will not get any rights over the property. Under the circumstances, for the reason mentioned above, I do not see any error in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶44

For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of trial Court independently appreciating the pleadings and the materials placed before it after due service of notice to the defendants in the original suit pending on its file and pass an appropriate orders on the applications filed by the petitioners.

¶45

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT: BHK

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

Smt Lakshmidevamma v. Smt Bhagyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmidevamma v. Smt Bhagyamma

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

Bar Association (Registered), Sagar, Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Sri L Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramachandrappa Vs Smt. Shyamalamma

Sri. P Thippaiah Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri. Abhilash Bhaskaran Vs Smt. Pushapavathi

Munivenkatamma Vs Ramanjanaiah