Smt K K Apporva @ Sathya Priyadarshini Vs Smt a P Vanaja

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:26958 MFA No. 2758 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2758 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. K.K. APPORVA @ SATHYA PRIYADARSHINI, W/O RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.9, FIRST FLOOR, VENUKAAMBA NILYAYA, SRIRAMNAGAR, GARVEBHAVIPALYA TO HONGASANDRA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VASANTHAKUMAR K.M, ADVOCATE AND SRI. HARSITHA MANI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. A.P. VANAJA, W/O LATE K.K. RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶13

SRI. RAJESH R. S/O LATE K.K. RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶14

BOTH ARE R/A NO. 5, GARVEBHAVIPALYA, HONGASANDRA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2025 PASSED ON

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:26958 MFA No. 2758 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

I.A.NO.I IN OS.NO. 8212/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8), DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order

¶25

dated 10.03.2025 in O.S.No.8212/2024 by the XI City Civil

¶26

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8) has preferred this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC.

¶27

It is the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court that, she claims ownership over the suit schedule property bearing No.5, U.P. Khatha No.59/3 situated at Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was being purchased by her predecessor Sri Rajendra under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.03.1994. She claims that, based on the General Power of Attorney (GPA), plaintiff's father got transferred the property in her name by virtue of Gift Deed dated

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26958 MFA No. 2758 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

05.09.2015 gifted by her father. It is alleged by the

¶31

plaintiff that, defendants despite agreeing to hand over the possession, did not hand over the possession. But they have started illegal construction on the suit schedule property compelling the plaintiff to lodge a police complaint on 22.10.2024. The police have directed her to seek civil remedies by filing a suit. In the suit, she has filed an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out construction on the suit schedule property. These averments made by the plaintiff are totally denied by the defendants by filing statement of objections.

¶32

It is contended that, the original owners Smt. Papamma and her son Sri Rajappa Reddy executed a valid GPA dated 15.06.1989 in favour of the husband of defendant No.1 by name Sri K.K.Rajan. Based upon the said GPA, K.K.Rajan executed the Sale Deed in favour of his wife i.e., defendant No.1 on 25.08.2003, which is legally valid and duly registered.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:26958 MFA No. 2758 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

It is further stated that the plaintiff's father and

¶37

his vendor filed O.S.No.2551/2015. The said suit was decreed ex-parte . Thereafter, defendants filed

¶38

Miscellaneous Petition in Misc.870/2015 and ex-parte decree was set aside on 08.01.2018 and ultimately, suit was dismissed on 31.01.2020 for non-payment of court fees. It is alleged that, the defendants have not trespassed the plaintiff's property. They are in lawful possession of their property.

¶39

The learned trial Court on hearing the arguments of both the side and on evaluation of the records, dismissed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. This is how now the plaintiff is before this Court seeking setting aside of the impugned order.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that plaintiff's claim is based on the disputed Gift Deed, while the defendants have a registered Sale Deed.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:26958 MFA No. 2758 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

He would submit that, in the course of the order, the learned trial Court in para 13, states that, ultimately if plaintiff succeeds in trial, she can seek appropriate remedies, including demolition or compensation. According to him, as per the verification made by the plaintiff, already defendants have completed the construction. Counsel for the defendants concedes the same. Therefore, when construction is completed, there is no question of granting of any injunction, by directing not to put up any construction. If the plaintiff succeeds, she has got remedy of demolition or compensation.

¶45

When the plaintiff is seeking temporary

¶46

injunction against the defendants, the plaintiff has to comply the three components to grant of temporary injunction that is (i) Prima facie case, (ii) Balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable injury on affidavits.

¶47

In this case, as submitted by the learned

¶48

counsel for the plaintiff though an application is filed for

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:26958 MFA No. 2758 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from putting up any construction over the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The defendants have completed the construction work.

¶53

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, in view of the completion of the construction work, the application itself has become infructuous. However, as observed by the learned trial Court with regard to the remedies available to the plaintiff, if the plaintiff succeeds, she can seek for demolition or compensation. Ultimately whether the plaintiff is entitled for share or not is the question to be decided by the trial Court. Therefore, rights of the plaintiff are to be kept open with regard to her entitlement of share so claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, as the defendants have completed the construction, this appeal does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the following :-

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:26958 MFA No. 2758 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The appeal is disposed of .

¶59

(ii) In view of the urgency pleaded by both the side, trial Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously within the outer limit of nine months from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order.

¶60

(iii) Both the parties shall co-operate the trial Court for early disposal without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

¶61

(iv) All contentions of the parties are left open.

¶62

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶63

PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK

Smt K K Apporva @ Sathya Priyadarshini v. Smt a P Vanaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K K Apporva @ Sathya Priyadarshini v. Smt a P Vanaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Narayanamma Vs Sri. R. Chandra

Sri Pradeep Vs Sri Narasimhegowda

Krishne Gowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri C Manjunath Vs Smt Narayanamma

Sri M Krishnamurthy Vs Sri M Ramachandra

Mr. Mohammed Shahid Ahmed Vs Smt. Nagarathna