Sri. Hanumantharayappa Vs Sri. M Sachidananda Swamy

SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGANNA, R/A NO.648/22, RR HOME GUBBALALA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 061.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR MS. RAKSHITHA D. J., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. M. SACHIDANANDA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE MADAIAH, R/A NO.102, ‘NANNA NENASUNILAYA SRI. RAMANJANEYA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, CHIIKKALSANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 061.

¶16

2 -

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:36028 MFA No. 253 of 2022

¶19

CNR: KAHC010009292022

¶20

ALSO AT:

¶21

MAHADESHWARA CINEMA 4K DOLBY ATMOS AC BANASHANAKARI, 6^TH CROSS, NEAR KADIRENAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 070.

¶22

SRI. YUVARAJ AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O. SRI. M. SACHIDANANDA SWAMY, R/A NO.102, ‘NANNA NENASUNILAYA’ SRI. RAMANJANEYA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, CHIIKKALSANDRSA, BANGALORE – 560 061.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.I IN O.S.NO.198/2021 ON THE FILE OF XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8) AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶28

3 -

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:36028 MFA No. 253 of 2022

¶31

CNR: KAHC010009292022

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff calling in question the order dated 25.10.2021 passed on I.A.No.I filed Under Order XXXIX

¶34

Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.198/2021 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8)¹ , thereby, the application filed seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction was dismissed.

¶35

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶36

The plaintiff is claiming ownership over the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 01.09.2016 having been executed by the wife of Munikariyappa S/o. Nanjundappa. Whereas, the defendants have raised serious dispute regarding the title

¶37

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:36028 MFA No. 253 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

CNR: KAHC010009292022

¶42

over the property contending that the wife of Munikariyappa did not have the right to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.

¶43

It is the case of the defendants in the written statement that one Munikariyappa S/o. Nanjundappa being the original propositus of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.10 of Kadirenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 25 guntas of land had alienated the said property in favour of H. Krishnappa @ Krishnadas S/o. Hanumanthappa and B.K. Venkaappaiah and they had purchased the property to an extent of 25 guntas through a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1966. Later, they converted the suit land and formed layout and in the suit land, the eastern half portion was retained by H.K. Krishnadas and 25 feet road was formed and the western half portion was given to B.K. Venkaappaiah. The defendants are claiming his title through H.K. Krishnadas

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:36028 MFA No. 253 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CNR: KAHC010009292022

¶48

and he has been having title commencing from the year 1966.

¶49

When this being the serious dispute raised in

¶50

the written statement regarding the title of the plaintiff, the Trial Court has declined to grant of an order of temporary injunction.

¶51

During the course of arguments, Sri. D. L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff submitted that he will file an application for amendment seeking comprehensive reliefs of declaration and injunction.

¶52

In such an event, if the plaintiff files an application for amendment seeking the reliefs of declaration and injunction, then the Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. Also, liberty is reserved to the appellant/plaintiff to urge an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking the relief

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:36028 MFA No. 253 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

CNR: KAHC010009292022

¶57

of temporary injunction and the same shall be considered

¶58

as per law.

¶59

Therefore, with these observations, liberty is granted to the appellant/plaintiff to file an application seeking the relief of declaration and injunction and also liberty is reserved to file an application seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction and the same shall be considered by the Trial Court as per law.

¶60

With the above said observations, the appeal is

¶61

disposed of .

¶62

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶63

SRA

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri. Hanumantharayappa v. Sri. M Sachidananda Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Hanumantharayappa v. Sri. M Sachidananda Swamy

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

B.S. Indumathi Vs Sri B S Kumar

Smt. Shashi Andrews Vs Sri. Nitish Raghunath Shetty

Sri. Mahesh G. Kini Vs Sri. N. Venkatarama

Sri. Ganesha Vs Sri. Thimmappa

Sri D K Naganna Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mohammed Salahuddin Vs Smt Shamshad Begum