Partly allowed

Sri Adinarayanareddy v. Smt Chikkanagamma

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024WP/47427/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff in a permanent-injunction suit sought certiorari against reversal by appeal court of trial court's temporary injunction granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The High Court found prima facie possession claims valid only for schedule items 2 and 3, restored injunction for those items alone and denied it for item 1.

What did the court decide?

Trial court's order set aside; IA No.I allowed in part - temporary injunction granted for items 2 and 3 only, restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession.

Sri Adinarayanareddy Vs Smt Chikkanagamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5073 WP No. 47427 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 47427 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI ADINARAYANAREDDY S/O LATE SRI. ADIMURTHY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT M. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE NAGARAGERE HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 210

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. BHARGAV G .,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

SMT CHIKKANAGAMMA W/O LATE ASHWATHAREDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEAR RESIDING AT M.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE NAGARAGERE HOBLI GOWRIDIBANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 210

¶13

SRI. NAGIREDDY S/O LATE CHINNAPPAREDDY RESIDING AT M.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GOWRIDIBANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 210

¶14

SRI. NARASIMHAREDDY S/O LATE ASHWATHAREDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT M.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GOWRIDIBANUR TALUK

¶15

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 210

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. A N RAMAKRIHNAIAH .,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3 V/O DATED 23.03.2022-PETITION DOES NOT LIE AS AGAISNT R2)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:5073 WP No. 47427 of 2017

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.08.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR IN M.A.NO.49/2015 VIDE ANNEX-G, CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUDIBANDE ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.171/2015, DATED 17.10.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The plaintiff in OS No.171 of 2015 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Gudibande, is seeking issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the judgment dated 31.08.2017 passed in MA No. 49 of 2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur, allowing the appeal by setting aside the order dated 17.10.2015 passed by the Trial Court allowing IA No.I of filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

¶24

Heard Sri. Bhargav G. learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioner and Sri A N Ramakrihnaiah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the materials on record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

¶27

the petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit OS No.171 of 2015

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5073 WP No. 47427 of 2017

¶29

seeking permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants are not related to the plaintiff. However, they started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff and hence, the suit came to be filed. Learned counsel submitted that the defendants have filed the written statement and they have not claimed any relationship with the plaintiff. They have admitted the partition between Adimurthy, Chinnammanni and Narayanappa on 11.11.1972. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to item Nos. 2 and 3 of the schedule property. Even though, defendants contended that Nagamma acquired 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.229/1 i.e., item No.1 under the Will dated 26.11.1990, no such documents is produced before the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court rightly allowed IA No.I and granted temporary injunction. The First Appellate Court formed an opinion that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts of taking possession of his share under the registered partition deed dated 11.11.1972 and that his father purchased only half share from Balakka out of 3.18 guntas in item No.1, he is not entitled for temporary injunction. However, it is the contention of the plaintiff that he acquired

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:5073 WP No. 47427 of 2017

¶32

item Nos. 2 and 3 and it is admitted by the defendants in the written statement. Under such circumstances, the First Appellate Court committed an error in rejecting grant of temporary injunction. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposing the petition submitted that the genealogical tree filed by the plaintiff is not admitted by the defendants. The defendants are related to the plaintiff, who are claiming the right over the schedule property. There was a registered sale deed dated 11.11.1972 executed by Adimurthy, Chinnammanni and Narayanappa in respect of 1.18 acres of the land in item No.1, in favour of father of defendants. This fact is not suppressed in the plaint to claim temporary injunction in respect of the entire 3.18 acres of the land. Even in respect of item Nos. 2 and 3, there is a dispute. Therefore, the First Appellate Court was right in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. There are no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:5073 WP No. 47427 of 2017

¶36

In respect of item No.1 of the schedule property, the plaintiff claim to be in possession of the 3.18 acres of land in Sy.No. 229/1. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendants that, 1.18 acres of land in item No.1 was purchased by their father under the registered sale deed dated 11.11.1972. This fact is not disputed by the plaintiff. Therefore it is clear that the father of the defendants had purchased 1.18 acres of land under the registered sale deed. It is not made clear as to which portion was sold in favour of the father of the defendants in item No.1. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled for temporary injunction with respect of the same.

¶37

It is the contention of the plaintiff that, he is in possession and enjoyment of item No.2 i.e., Sy.No.271/3 measuring 31 guntas. In the written statement, the defendants have admitted that in Sy.No.271/1 the plaintiff was allotted 29 guntas of land in the partition deed dated 11.11.1972. The extent which is being claimed by the plaintiff is 31 guntas. It is to be noticed that, the total extent of the land is 2.08 acres and one gunta is karab land. That being the case, the contention of

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:5073 WP No. 47427 of 2017

¶40

the plaintiff that he is in possession and enjoyment of 31 guntas of land in second item could be prima facie accepted.

¶41

Regarding third item of the property i.e., Sy.No.265 the plaintiff claims to be in possession of 10 guntas of land. The defendants in the written statement admitted that Balakka, the wife of Gangappa executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of half share and also admitted that 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.265 i.e., item No.3, was mutated in the name of the plaintiff on the basis of partition deed dated 11.11.1972. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for temporary injunction in respect of item No.3 as well. However, as stated above the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case in respect of the possession of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for temporary injunction in respect of item Nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule property. But he is not entitled for grant of temporary injunction in respect of item No.1 of the schedule property.

¶42

I have gone through the impugned order passed by First Appellate Court. It has not discussed anything about item

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:5073 WP No. 47427 of 2017

¶45

Nos. 2 and 3 of the schedule and its concentration is only regarding item No.1. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶46

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶49

(ii) The order dated 17.10.2015 passed in OS No.171 of

¶50

2015 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Gudibande, is hereby set aside.

¶51

(iii) IA No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of

¶52

CPC is allowed in part. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled for temporary injunction against the defendants in respect of item Nos. 2 and 3 of schedule and not in respect of item No.1. Accordingly, the defendants are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of item Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint schedule.

¶53

SdJUDGE

¶54

SPV: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Adinarayanareddy v. Smt Chikkanagamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Adinarayanareddy v. Smt Chikkanagamma

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

Sri C Raje Gowda Vs M/ S Kapil Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd.

Parvathamma Vs Nandish. K. S.

Smt M Bharathi Vs M/S Saishiva Hotels Inc.

Smt G Manjula Vs Sri T Prakash

Smt. Puttalakshmamma Vs Sri. Narayanappa

Sri. Hanumanthappa Vs Sri Ramappa