Dismissed

T. Pavankumar v. N. Ramesh

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024WP/20651/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant No.6 in a partition suit challenged a Trial Court order directing parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. The court found he had earlier challenged the same order in another writ petition without disclosing it, dismissed the petition for non-disclosure and abuse of process with costs, but allowed lease applications subject to Trial Court conditions.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000 payable to Sri Jayadeva Institute Of Cardiovascular Sciences And Research, Bengaluru.

T. Pavankumar Vs N. Ramesh — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42675 WP No. 20651 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20651 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

T. PAVANKUMAR S/O. LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.48, SOWMYA NILAYA, JAYANTHAMMA STREET, NAGAMMA EXTENSION, KAVALBYRASANDRA, BANGALORE-560032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND:

¶8

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

N. RAMESH, S/O. NALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAVALBYRASANDRA, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560032.

¶10

R. SRINIVASA MURTHY @ AKANDASRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O. C. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.32, KAVALBYRASANDRA, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560032.

¶11

G. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE GUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42675 WP No. 20651 of 2024

¶13

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. YELLAPPA D/O. LATE GUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶14

RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.131, KAVALBYRASANDRA, NEAR WATER TANK, R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560032.

¶15

H. VENKATESH S/O. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶16

SMT. THIMMAKKA D/O. THIMMAIAH, W/O. HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶17

RESPONDENT NO.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT DODDABELE VILLAGE, KENGERI POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560060.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MURALIDARA R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OS NO.8100/2019 ON THE FILE OF XXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-40) AT BANGALORE AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 PASSED ON MEMO FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF ON THE FILE OF XXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH40) AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42675 WP No. 20651 of 2024

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The defendant No.6 in O.S.No.8100/2019 on the file of the 39^th Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 17.03.2023 passed therein directing the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of suit property and clarifying that it should not be construed as restricting in any manner the use and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by its owner except its alteration, modification and alienation creating any third party interest in any manner whatsoever.

¶26

(i) The suit in O.S.No.8100/2019 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in the suit schedule property and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 11.01.1999 and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.2 to 6 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in the suit schedule property. The suit was contested by the defendant No.6 who denied the plaintiff's entitlement to a share in the suit schedule property.

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42675 WP No. 20651 of 2024

¶28

(ii) When the suit was set down for cross-examination of PW.1, the plaintiff filed a memo enclosing therewith certain photographs of suit property, where it was purportedly found that the defendant No.6 had displayed a board that the suit property was up for sale. The plaintiff therefore pressed for an interim order to protect the status-quo. The defendant No.6 sought time to file objections to the aforesaid memo. The Trial Court after noticing the photographs produced by the plaintiff directed the parties to maintain status-quo and also explain the terms of status-quo as mentioned above.

¶29

Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant

¶30

No.6 has filed this writ petition.

¶31

The learned counsel for the defendant No.6 contended that the Trial Court without giving an opportunity to defendant No.6 to file objections to the memo, passed the order to maintain status-quo. He contends that as a result of the order of status-quo, the defendant No.6 is not in a position to even let out the property on lease. He therefore, contends that the impugned order of status-quo be modified and the Trial Court be directed to reconsider the issue.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42675 WP No. 20651 of 2024

¶33

Learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand submitted that the defendant No.6 had challenged the very same order in W.P.No.1036/2024 which was disposed off in terms of the order dated 11.01.2024. He contends that the filing of the said writ petition and disposal of the said writ petition is not brought to the notice of this Court in the present writ petition. He contends that W.P.No.1036/2024 was disposed off directing the Trial Court to dispose off the suit within six months. However, the defendant No.6 has been protracting the suit on one or the other ground.

¶34

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant No.6 as well as the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶35

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, defendant No.6 had already challenged the order impugned in this writ petition in W.P.No.1036/2024 and the said writ petition was disposed off on 11.01.2024 directing the Trial Court to dispose off the suit within six months. The defendant No.6 did not disclose the filing of W.P.No.1036/2024 in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42675 WP No. 20651 of 2024

¶37

dismissed only on the ground of non-disclosure of material fact. Besides this, the defendant No.6 deserves to be hauled up for abusing the process of this Court by repetitively challenging the impugned order and for not disclosing the details of the earlier proceeding.

¶38

Even otherwise, the Trial Court has perused the memo along with documents filed by the plaintiff which justified that the defendant No.6 was attempting to encumber the property and therefore, in order to maintain status-quo pending disposal of the suit, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order of status-quo which does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, if the defendant No.6 desires to lease out any portion of the suit property, he shall file an appropriate application before the Trial Court, which shall consider the same and impose such conditions that are necessary to secure the interest of the plaintiff, in the event he succeeds in the suit.

¶39

In that view of the matter, this writ petition lacks

¶40

merit and is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- payable to Sri Jayadeva Institute Of Cardiovascular Sciences And Research,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:42675 WP No. 20651 of 2024

¶43

Bengaluru, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶44

certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

T. Pavankumar v. N. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Pavankumar v. N. Ramesh

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

Smt. Nagamma (Since Dead by Her Lrs) Vs Sri. Ramakrishna

Nagamma @ Thayamma Vs Smt. Mallamma

Delta Sport Hadelskontor Gmbh Vs Hippocampus Health Care Private Limited

Sri Munikempaiah Vs Sri G Rajanna

Smt Shahanawaz Begum Vs Sri a Abdul Gani

Siddaramanna Vs Rangamma