Smt. Hemavathi Vs N Sureshbabu

NO. 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT, 326, NEAR DANDU MARAMMA TEMPLE, MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURAHOBALI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, PIN CODE-560 099.

¶17

SMT.JAYAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,

¶18

D/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, REP BY THE GPA HOLDERS APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3

¶19

SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIREDDY,

¶20

D/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY,

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, REP BY THE GPA HOLDERS APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 3

¶24

G.SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE GURUMURTHY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, REP BY THE GPA HOLDERS APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 3

¶25

NO.4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT, 285, NEAR DANDU MARAMMA TEMPLE, MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURAHOBALI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT- 560 099.

¶26

…APPELLANTS

¶27

(BY SMT. GEETHA.S AND SMT. HEMALATHA, ADVOCATES A/W SRI. RAVICHANDRA M., ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

N SURESHBABU, S/O LATE D.C.NANJAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶30

N.ASHOK, S/O LATE D.C.NANJAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶31

N. VEENA, D/O LATE D.C.NANJAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶32

NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURAHOBALI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶33

S.N.SHYAMANNA REDDY, S/O LATE NAGIREDDY,

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

¶37

Y.VENKATASWAMY REDDY S/O LATE YELLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶38

ANIL KUMAR,

¶39

S/O Y.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶40

ASHOK KUMAR,

¶41

S/O Y.VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶42

SMT. CHOWDAMMA, W/O M.APPAREDDY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶43

NO.4 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT SAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, MUTHANALLURPOST, SARJAPURAHOBALI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. B.N.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R8)

¶46

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.15.10.2024 PASSED ON IA NOS.1 AND 5 IN O.S.NO.1314/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DISMISSING IA NO.1 AND 5 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶47

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

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶49

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶52

The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 5 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in O.S.No.1314/2023 dated 15.10.2024 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, whereby the applications filed for grant of Temporary Injunction restraining the defendant No.8 from alienating or putting up any construction on the said property was dismissed.

¶53

The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 12.02.1969 executed by father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is null and void on the plaintiffs; to declare that the sale deed dated 21.04.1982 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs; to declare the sale deed dated 28.06.1990 executed by defendant Nos.5 to 7 in favour of defendant No.8 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and further, sought for a direction to defendant No.8 to deliver the vacant possession of the suit

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

schedule property to the plaintiffs and along with other consequential reliefs.

¶58

In nutshell the case of the plaintiff is that Gurumurthy Reddy and Gumma Reddy are the two brothers. Gurumurthy Reddy had purchased the property of 2 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.61/4 of Samanahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District on 05.05.1944 but his brother of Gumma Reddy without having any title or right has sold the land Sy.No.61/4 to the extent of 1 acre 12 guntas to one D.C.Nanjareddy on 11.12.1961. Thereafter, the said D.C.Nanjareddy has sold the land Sy.No.61/4 to the extent of 2

¶59

acres 24 guntas to one S.N.Shyamanna Reddy through registered sale deed dated 12.02.1969. Thereafter, the said Shyamanna Reddy sold the land to the extent of 2 acres 24 guntas to Y.Venkataswamy Reddy through registered sale deed dated 21.04.1982. Thereafter, the said Y.Venkataswamy Reddy in turn, sold the same land in Sy.No.16/4 to the extent of 2 acres 24 guntas through registered sale deed dated 28.06.1990 to defendant No.8. Therefore, it is pleaded that Gumma Reddy has no right, title or ownership over the property but has sold

¶60

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

the property to the extent of 1 acre 12 guntas to D.C.Nanja Reddy and thereafter, the D.C.Nanja Reddy has sold the entire land of 2 acres 24 guntas and the brothers come to know these transactions when there was interference with the possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is at that stage, the cause of action arose on 23.09.2023 and 24.09.2023 when the defendant No.8 tried to dispossess the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

¶63

It is the case of the defendant No.8 in nutshell as per the written statement that there was partition between the Gurumurthy Reddy and Gumma Reddy has been allotted land bearing Sy.No.61/4 to the extent of 2 acres 24 guntas above stated and thus Gumma Reddy has become the absolute owner of the property by virtue of oral partition between Gurumurthy Reddy and Gumma Reddy. Accordingly, the said Gumma Reddy has sold the property to one D.C.Nanja Reddy. Thereafter through subsequent transactions, the property came to be conveyed to Shyamana Reddy, Y.Venkataswamy Reddy and Chowdamma Reddy as mentioned above. Therefore, it is the

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

specific assertion of the defendants that the Gumma Reddy had acquired the property through oral partition and accordingly has sold the property. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the suit.

¶68

Having heard the arguments on both the sides, the

¶69

following points arise for consideration:

¶70

(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court, so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

¶71

(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

¶72

(iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted then plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury?

¶73

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

¶74

Gurumurthy Reddy is the absolute owner of the schedule property as he has purchased the property on 05.05.1944 to the extent of 2 acres 24 guntas through registered sale deed.

¶75

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Though Gumma Reddy is the brother of the Gurumurthy Reddy, but Gumma Reddy did not have any right, title or interest over the property, but he has wrongly sold to D.C.Nanja Reddy on 11.12.1961 and therefore, the subsequent transactions after the sale of the suit schedule land to defendant No.8 are all illegal transactions and, when the plaintiffs are in possession, but suddenly, in the month of September, 2023, the defendant No.8 had caused interference with the possession of the plaintiff's on the suit schedule land. Therefore, filed a suit for the lis above claimed. It is submitted that when this being the fact, if the defendant No.8 alienates the suit schedule land and changes the nature of the property then the plaintiffs will suffer loss and irreparable injury. Hence, the plaintiffs prays for an order of Temporary Injunction relying upon various documents placed on record.

¶78

On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant No.8 submitted that in the plaint in para 9, the plaintiffs themselves pleaded and admitted that there was a oral partition between Gurumurthy Reddy and his brother Gumma Reddy and the lands situated in Sy.No.61/4 measuring

¶79

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

2 acres 12 guntas and 1 gunta Kharab was allotted to the share of Gumma Reddy and therefore, the sale made by Gumma Reddy in favour of D.C.Nanja Reddy and Shyamanna Reddy to Venkataswamy Reddy and then to defendant No.8 are all valid transactions. It is therefore, submitted that Gumma Reddy had valid title to sell the land, which fact has also been admitted by the plaintiffs themselves in plaint in para 9. It is further submitted that the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff challenged the sale deed dated 12.02.1969, 24.02.1982 and 28.06.1990, but the suit is filed in the year 2023, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that all the aforesaid transactions were effected through registered sale deeds and therefore, the said transactions are valid but the plaintiffs have not initiated any proceedings which itself shows lack of the bonafideness of the plaintiff in instituting the suit and it is rightly considered by the trial court, which requires no interference by this court. It is further submitted that from the owner of the suit schedule property, the name of the purchaser is mutated in the name of Shyamanna Reddy who had purchased the land on 12.02.1969. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and the revenue records

¶82

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

have been mutated in the name of the purchasers and therefore, the suit filed itself is frivolous one and there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience as rightly held by the trial court therefore, justified the order of rejection of the application filed for temporary injunction. Thus, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶85

Learned counsel for the respondent No.8 places

¶86

reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

¶87

of UMA DEVI VS. ANANDA KUMAR’, (2025) 5 SCC 198 and a decision of this court in CRP No.898/2024 dated 24.06.2025 (MR.NAGARAJARADHYA AND OTHERS VS. MANJUNATHASWAMY AND OTHERS) and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶88

Upon considering the submissions made by learned counsels and the documents placed on record, though the sale deeds are challenged the prayer is that sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs have produced a copy of the sale deed dated 05.02.1944 to show that Guru Murthy Reddy had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.61/4 to the extent of 2 acres 24 guntas

¶89

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

situated at Samanahalli Village, Sarajapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, which prima facie shows that Guru Murthy Reddy has become owner of the property. The plaintiffs are claiming to be legal representatives of Guru Murthy Reddy, which is not disputed by the defendants.

¶92

Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Gumma Reddy did not have title over the suit schedule lands and no documents are furnished to show that Gumma Reddy was owner of the property but the plaintiffs in the plaint at para 9 have pleaded and admitted that there was oral partition between the brothers Gurumurthy Reddy and Gumma Reddy and the land to the extent of 1 acre 12 guntas was allotted to Gumma Reddy. Further, the plaintiff admitted in the plaint that the said Gumma Reddy has sold his entire share of 1 acre 12 guntas to C.Nanja Reddy (father of D1 to D3) vide registered sale deed dated 11.12.1961, thereafter, through other persons as narrated above. The suit schedule land is Sy.No.64/1 situated in Samanahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District measuring 1 acre 13 guntas out of 2 acre 25 guntas. Therefore, the plaintiffs have

¶93

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

admitted themselves though Gumma Reddy has become owner of the property by oral partition to the extent of 1 acre 12 guntas. Gumma Reddy had sold the property to C.Nanja Reddy to the extent of 1 acre 12 guntas as per the oral partition, but the subsequent transactions of sale from D.C.Nagaraj to Shyamanna Reddy is to the extent of 2 acres 24 guntas. Shyamanna Reddy had sold the property to defendant No.8 to the extent of 2 acres 24 guntas. It is submitted that Gumma Reddy has sold the entire 2 acres 24 guntas to D.C.Nanja Reddy but due to inadvertence in the sale deed dated 11.12.1961, the extent shown is 1 acre 12 guntas, but considering the boundaries, it is to the entire extent of 2 acres 24 guntas was sold out when compared with the sale deed dated 05.05.1944. Therefore, the submission that all the subsequent transactions from Shyamanna Reddy to defendant No.8 were to the extent of 2 acres 24 guntas and the boundaries shown in the sale deed depicts the same. Therefore, submitted all the sale transactions are valid.

¶96

Upon considering the materials made available at this stage before the trial court and this court that defendant

¶97

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

No.8 had not produced any documents to show that there was a partition between Guru Murthy Reddy and Gumma Reddy, but as per the admission made by the plaintiffs in the plaint as discussed above, there was oral partition between Guru Murthy Reddy and Gumma Reddy and Gumma Reddy was allotted the land to the extent of 1 acre 12 guntas only. In the absence of documentary evidence, acting upon the oral partition, at this stage it can be considered as Gumma Reddy has obtained share of 1 acre 12 guntas only upon considering the pleadings made in the plaint by the plaintiffs, but D.C.Nanja Reddy has sold the land to the entire extent of 2 acres 24 guntas and the subsequent sale transactions were also to the extent of 2 acres 24 guntas. When this being the case, the question before the court for consideration is for remaining 1 acre 13 guntas whether Gumma Reddy had a title or not to the entire extent is the issue to be decided during the trial which makes a prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs.

¶100

No doubt, in the sale deeds 1961, 1969, 1992 and

¶101

1990 the boundaries mentioned cover the entire extent of 2 acre 24 guntas, but there are no documents on behalf of the

¶102

14 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

defendants that Gumma Reddy had become the owner of entire 2 acres 24 guntas. It is the case of the appellants that under the oral partition, Guru Murthy Reddy has been given other properties and therefore, the land Sy.No.64/1 to the extent of 2 acres 24 guntas was entirely allotted to the share of Gumma Reddy, but there is no document. If there was oral partition and the entire extent of 2 acre 24 guntas was given to the share of Gumma Reddy then that could have been reflected in the revenue records that is amounting to acting upon and coming in force the oral partition, but there are no such documents at this stage. Therefore, for remaining extent of 1 acre 13 guntas, the trial is to be conducted to decide whether Gumma Reddy is the owner or not. When this being the situation of the plaintiffs and balance of convenience and if for remaining 1 acre 13 guntas of land, if there is any alteration or change of nature of land that would cause injury and loss to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiffs/appellants have made out a prima facie case for the appellants and also would suffer injury and loss if an order of temporary injunction is not granted. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the trial court on the application filed for temporary

¶106

15 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:37940 MFA No. 7772 of 2024

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

injunction. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative. The learned counsel for defendant No.8 submitted that the defendant No.8 is in possession. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶110

O R D E R

¶111