Disposed

Sri B a Ramesh v. Sri B a Nagesh

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2024WP/34749/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant challenged the appellate court's order granting his brother interim injunction over coffee estate land allotted under a 1979 partition deed. The plaintiff conceded errors in survey numbers and boundaries in the suit schedule and undertook corrections. The High Court disposed of the petition, restricting the injunction to the corrected extent and boundaries.

What did the court decide?

Interim injunction confined to 8 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.2 with corrected boundaries until plaintiff incorporates corrections in the plaint.

Sri B a Ramesh Vs Sri B a Nagesh — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:52896 WP No. 34749 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34749 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI B A RAMESH S/O ANNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/AT KELAGOOR ESTATE, BALUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 122.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K K VASANTH.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI B A NAGESH S/O ANNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT KELAGOOR ESTATE, BALUR VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 122.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOGI.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OS NO.82/2022 ON THE FILE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDDIGERE AND IN MA NO.9/2023,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52896 WP No. 34749 of 2024

¶16

ON THE FILE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDDIGERE HEAR THE PARTIES AND PASS THE FOLLOWING ORDERS AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The defendant in O.S.No.82/2022 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere is before this Court challenging the order in M.A.No.9/2023 dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudigere, by which the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Trial Court dated 06.04.2023 rejecting interim injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, was set aside and the application for interim injunction was allowed.

¶21

The suit in O.S.No.82/2022 was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of land measuring 8 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.2 of Kelagoor Estate, Balur village, Mudigere Taluk.

¶22

The case of the plaintiff was that in terms of a partition deed dated 04.09.1979, the Kelagoor estate belonging

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52896 WP No. 34749 of 2024

¶24

to the family was divided between the plaintiff, defendant and their father. As per the partition, 8 acres 10 guntas of coffee land in Sy.No.2B and 9 acres 10 guntas of coffee land in Sy.No.2A of Kelagoor estate and 3 acres 11 guntas of wet land in Sy.No.10 of Durgadahalli was allotted to the share of the father. Similarly, 20 acres 20 guntas of coffee land in Sy.No.2 and 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.81 of Belagali village, Balur Hobli and 4 acres 20 guntas of wet land in Sy.No.81 was allotted to the share of the plaintiff and 12.07 acres of coffee land in Sy.No.2 of Kelagoor Estate, 6 acres and 1/2 guntas of coffee land in Sy.No.11 of sunkasale grama and 3.20 acres of wet land in Sy.No.10 of Durgadahalli was allotted to the share of defendant.

¶25

It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of his mother, out of the land allotted to the share of his father 8 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.2B of Kelagoor Estate was made over to him, while 9 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.2A of Kelagoor Estate and 3 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.10 of Durgadahalli and other properties were made over to the share of defendant. The property measuring 8.10 acres in Sy.No.2B was the suit property.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:52896 WP No. 34749 of 2024

¶28

The plaintiff claimed that he thus became the owner of suit schedule property which was 8.10 acres of coffee estate in Sy.No.2B of Baloor village. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant who is his brother though having no manner of right, title, interest over the property was trespassing into the suit property and was obstructing to cultivate the same. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain his brother from interfering with his possession of suit schedule property.

¶29

The defendant contested the suit and contended that the suit property was not allotted to the share of the plaintiff and denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. He contended that it was not mentioned in the partition deed that the suit property had to go to the plaintiff after the death of his mother. He also denied having trespassed into the suit property and had obstructed the plaintiff from cultivating the suit property.

¶30

An application for injunction was filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant from interfering with cultivation and enjoyment of the suit property. This application

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52896 WP No. 34749 of 2024

¶32

was contested by the defendant counsel on similar lines. The defendant also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property mentioned in the schedule to the application.

¶33

The Trial Court after considering the contentions of the plaintiff and the defendant held that the entire extent of Sy.No.2 of Kelagoor Estate measured 81.03 acres. It held that the identification of the suit property was not possible as it was phoded and therefore granting an order of injunction infavour of the plaintiff would cause injury to the defendant, more particularly, since the defendant claimed that he had some portion of land in Sy.No.2 of Kelagoor Estate. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the appellate Court.

¶34

The Appellate Court after perusing the partition deed and recitals contained therein was of the opinion that the plaintiff had made out a case that the suit property measuring 8 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.2B of Kelagoor Estate was made over to the share of the plaintiff. Therefore, it held that the

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:52896 WP No. 34749 of 2024

¶36

plaintiff had proved his title to the suit property and consequently held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and hence reversed the order of the Trial Court and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment and cultivation of the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant is before this Court.

¶37

Learned counsel for the defendant though admitted the partition deed dated 4.9.1979, contended that the boundaries mentioned in the suit did not tally with actual boundary of the suit property. He contended that the eastern side of the suit property was mentioned as property of the defendant giving an impression that the plaintiff is claiming not only 8.10 acres of land in Sy.No.2B but also the land measuring 9.10 acres in Sy.No.2A of Kelagoor Estate. He therefore contends that the order of injunction is likely to arm the plaintiff with an order to interfere with his peaceful possession.

¶38

Learned counsel for the plaintiff fairly conceded that the eastern boundary mentioned in the suit schedule is 9.10 acres in Sy.No.2A of Kelagoor Estate and not Sy.No.2 of

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:52896 WP No. 34749 of 2024

¶41

Kelagoor Estate measuring 12.07 acres that was allotted to the share of the defendant. He also admits that the property of defendant was mentioned as Sy.No.2B in the partition and not Sy.No.2 and agreed to make appropriate corrections before the Trial Court. Similarly, he admitted that the western boundary of the suit schedule property was the remaining portion of the plaintiff and not Mastikhan Estate and he agreed to make appropriate corrections in the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the suit.

¶42

12. Since the plaintiff has now restricted the boundaries

¶43

and has also undertaken to correct the survey numbers and boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the suit, the interest of the defendant is sufficiently protected as the order of injunction shall be construed only to the extent of 8 Acres 10 guntas of land lying within the boundaries as stated above, which shall be incorporated by the plaintiff in the plaint in accordance with law. Until the same is done, the order of interim injunction granted by the Trial Court shall be in respect of 8.10 acres of coffee land in Sy.No.2 of Kelagoor estate, Balur village, Mudigere Taluk bounded on the;

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:52896 WP No. 34749 of 2024

¶45

East by: Property of defendant bearing

¶46

Sy.No.2B of Kelagoor;

¶47

West by: Plaintiff's property

¶48

North by: Kalasa-Kottigehara road

¶49

South by: Horiban road

¶50

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of on the above

terms.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri B a Ramesh v. Sri B a Nagesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B a Ramesh v. Sri B a Nagesh

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. Renuka Seshadri Vs Smt Shobha Prabhakar

Sri Anil Ramnani Vs Sri Ramesh S Ramnane

Babu Reddy Vs Umashankar

Smt.Ashwathamma Vs Smt Kempamma

Smt. Gowramma Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri Jayaprakash Narayana Vidyasamsthe (R) Vs Sri Revanasiddappa