Disposed

Smt. Sakamma v. Madhukar Gaddam

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2024WP/9940/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs challenged the trial court's refusal to grant ex parte interim injunction restraining construction and encumbrance over suit property. The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing both parties to maintain status quo until disposal of the injunction applications, and directed the trial court to decide them within two months.

What did the court decide?

Status quo to be maintained by parties regarding suit property until disposal of I.A.Nos.1 and 2 before trial court

Smt. Sakamma Vs Madhukar Gaddam — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45197 WP No. 9940 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9940 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SAKAMMA W/O LATE MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS

¶8

SMT. ASHWATHAMMA D/O LATE MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶9

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶10

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

¶11

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF BODHANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN - 560067.

¶12

(BY SRI. NAGA REDDY V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

MADHUKAR GADDAM S/O LATE MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4/1, SY NO.3, SECOND FLOOR, PATTANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560066.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45197 WP No. 9940 of 2024

¶17

G.K. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU S/O G. KRISHNAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.88, FERNS MEDOWS, BILESHIVALE MAIN ROAD, DR. SHIVARAMKARANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560077.

¶18

SMT. SUMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND M.K. STORES, VARTHUR VILLAGE/HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560100.

¶19

T.N. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.275A, KEBBE HALLA, RAJEEV GANDHI NAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU - 560091.

¶20

SMT. SHASHI W/O. SRIDHAR RAO D/O. LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT VARTHUR VILLAGE/TALUK, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560100.

¶21

SMT. NALINA W/O MADHUSUDHAN D/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT BEHIND M K STORES, VARTHUR VILLAGE/HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560100.

¶22

MISS SHRUTHI A D/O ANANTHAPADMANABHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:45197 WP No. 9940 of 2024

¶25

SRI. DHANUSH A S/O. ANANTHAPADMANABHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶26

RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO.275A, KEBBE HALLA, RAJEEV GANDI NAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU - 560091.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. BALARAJ A.C., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.4, 7 AND 8)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.03.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 2 BY THE VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN OS NO.553/2024 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS THE APPROPRIATE ORDER TO ALLOW THE IA NO. 1 AND 2 AND ETC.,

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.553/2024 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) have filed this petition challenging an order dated 22.03.2024 by which, the Trial Court refused to grant exparte interim injunction.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:45197 WP No. 9940 of 2024

¶36

The suit in O.S.No.553/2024 was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiffs to the suit property and consequently to declare that the sale deed dated 29.03.2021 is not binding upon them and to direct the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the suit property and to pay damages of Rs.50,00,000/- and for perpetual injunction.

¶37

An application for interim injunction was filed to restrain the defendants from putting up any further construction over the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The plaintiffs also sought for interim injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from encumbering the suit schedule property.

¶38

The Trial Court after considering the material placed

¶39

before it, issued emergent notice to the defendants and refused to grant exparte order of injunction.

¶40

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

¶41

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case but the Trial

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:45197 WP No. 9940 of 2024

¶44

Court failed to objectively consider the material placed before it before holding that there was no prima case for grant of exparte injunction.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Trial Court had applied its mind to the documents placed before it and it was satisfied that there was no case made out. He contends that the Trial Court has exercised discretion and therefore this Court may not set aside the order exercising the discretion and refusing to grant exparte injunction.

¶46

When this petition was listed for orders, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that this Court had passed an order dated 01.04.2024 directing the parties to maintain status-quo in all respects in relation to the suit property. He submits that the order dated 01.04.2024 was extended from time to time. He therefore submits that this order directing the parties to maintain status-quo in all respects in respect of suit property be continued till the applications are disposed off before the Trial Court.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:45197 WP No. 9940 of 2024

¶49

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off directing the plaintiffs and defendants to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property in all respects, until disposal of I.A.Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court.

¶50

In view of the aforesaid order, the Trial Court is directed to consider the applications filed by the plaintiffs, uninfluenced by the order of status-quo granted by this Court and as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Smt. Sakamma v. Madhukar Gaddam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sakamma v. Madhukar Gaddam

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. Abdul Azeez Vs Sri. Syed Babu

Smt. Ganghanumamma Vs Smt. Sakamma

Umme Salma Vs Amjad Basha

Sri a Krishnappa @ Krishna Reddy Vs Smt Narayanamma

Munirama Bhovi Vs Sri.Nagaraju

Sri. Jayanna Vs Smt Sharadamma S