Sri D Kumar Vs Smt Geetha Krishnamurthy

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:42313 MFA No. 3987 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3987 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. D KUMAR S/O DODLI @ MARAPPA @ DODDLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT BYREGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGLAURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 562 123.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR C.S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. GEETHA KRISHNAMURTHY W/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BYREGOWDANAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 562 123.

¶14

SMT. MUNIRATHNA W/O LATE NARSIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VENTALA VILLAGE VENTALA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAGHU H.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42313 MFA No. 3987 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.13.03.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.760/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff/appellant questioning the order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Original Suit No.760/2023 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) whereby IA No.I filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is rejected and IA No.II filed by the defendant No.1 for vacating the interim order passed against her is allowed.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42313 MFA No. 3987 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and

¶30

injunction to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property in plot No.39 pertaining to survey No.17 of Byregowdanahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, by contending that gift deed dated 24.04.2004 and sale deed dated 28.11.2006 will not confer any right to the defendant No.1 as both the documents are unregistered and do not confer any title over defendant No.1. Hence, he filed application seeking declaration and temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

¶31

It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff i.e. Dodli @ Marappa @ Dodlaiah was allotted the suit schedule property plot No.39 pertaining to survey No.17 of Byregowdanahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, wherein sites were formed and allotted by the Government to the weaker sections of society based on Hakku Patra issued by the

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42313 MFA No. 3987 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Tahasildar on 23.02.1975 and one Smt. Parvathamma, W/o. Hanumanthaiah was allotted plot No.41 in the very

¶35

same survey number based on Hakku patra issued on 13.05.1972.

¶36

It is further contended that defendant No.1 being a stranger to the suit schedule property interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the said suit schedule property in the year 2017. Therefore, the suit came to be filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.251/2017 for injunction. Defendant No.1 appeared before the Court and contends that the father of plaintiff by oversight constructed residence in plot No.41 which was allotted to Smt. Parvathamma. Based on this, a consent deed was executed between the father of plaintiff and Smt. Parvathamma, according to which the plot No.39 belongs to Smt. Parvathamma and plot No.41 was allotted to the plaintiff i.e. the appellant herein.

¶37

It is contended that by virtue of unregistered gift deed dated 24.04.2004 executed by

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42313 MFA No. 3987 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Smt. Parvathamma in favour of defendant No.2 and

¶41

defendant No.2 in turn executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 28.11.2006, defendant No.1 contends that she is the owner of the property. But it is submitted that the said consent deed was not acted upon.

¶42

Thereafter, the said Parvathamma had executed unregistered gift deed in respect of Site No.39 in favour of her daughter, who is the 2^nd defendant. Thereafter, the 2^nd defendant has sold the suit site property in favour of the 1^st defendant. It is undisputed fact that the said Parvathamma has filed suit in O.S.640/2022 for declaration of ownership and injunction against the present plaintiff with respect to plot No.41 and the said suit was ended in compromise and it is stated that Parvathamma had received a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff and has relinquished her ownership right with respect to the Plot No.41 in favour of the plaintiff and others.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42313 MFA No. 3987 of 2024

¶44

Learned counsel for the

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

respondents/defendants submitted that now there is serious question involved is regarding whether the mother of the 2^nd defendant said to be Parvathamma, is the real Parvathamma, who was the allottee from the Government of plot No.41; this is a matter for trial before the Trial Court and is a very serious question regarding impersonation. Also, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the defendants have filed suit in O.S.No.397/2023 for permanent injunction and an application for temporary injunction filed and it was rejected. Against, this appeal in M.A.No.3/2024 which is pending before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala. Therefore, there are two suits are pending before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, between the respective parties.

¶47

Further, the Trial Court assigned the reasons

¶48

that for vacating the order of temporary injunction is that for a site measuring 60 x 40 ft., in Bengaluru City, no one

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42313 MFA No. 3987 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

would relinquish their title for a meager amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque and Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cash. This is the amount mentioned in the compromise decree in O.S.No.640/2022. Whether the said amount is disproportionate to the market value or not is a question for Trial, but admittedly, the said compromised decree is not challenged and it has attained finality.

¶52

When there are two suits pending, one for declaration of title and another one for permanent injunction. Hence, there are serious questions in two suits for consideration. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that both parties ordered to maintain status-quo regarding possession as on today would be sufficient. Hence, it is hereby ordered that both the plaintiff and defendants shall maintain status-quo regarding to possession over the schedule property as on today and shall not change the nature of the suit schedule property and shall not alienate and create any third party interest over the suit schedule property.

¶53