Karnataka High Court
Smt. V. Gowramma vs Smt. R.Poornima on 24 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16689
MFA No. 1055 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1055 OF 2024 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1651 OF 2024 (CPC)
IN MFA NO.1055/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. V. GOWRAMMA
W/O. LATE R.RAJASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/A NO.845/47-1, 3RD MAIN,
E-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
2. MASTER PREM RAJASHEKAR
S/O LATE R. RAJASHEKA,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. V. GOWRAMMA (FIRST PLAINTIFF)
R/A NO.845/47-1, 3RD MAIN,
Digitally signed E-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
by
MARKONAHALLI BENGALURU-560010.
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH
...APPELLANTS
COURT OF (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SMT. R.POORNIMA
W/O B. SUNDARA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.729/34-1, 3RD MAIN,
E-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010
2. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
SHIPPING HOUSE,
NO.245, MADAME CAMA ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16689
MFA No. 1055 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024
MUMBAI-400021
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,
SHIPPING HOUSE,
NO.245, MADAME CAMA ROAD,
MUMBAI-400021
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.D.ANURADHA URS, ADVOCATE FOR
CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.1
NOTICE YET TO BE ORDERED IN RESPECT OF RESPONDENT NOS.2
AND 3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2024
PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.6186/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-5,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1
AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
IN MFA NO.1651/2024:
BETWEEN:
SMT. R. POORNIMA
W/O. B. SUNDARA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A NO.729/34-1, 2ND MAIN,
E BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ANURADHA URS M.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. V. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE R. RAJASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/A NO.845/47-1, 3RD MAIN,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:16689
MFA No. 1055 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024
E-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
2. MASTER PREM RAJASHEKHAR
S/O. LATE R. RAJASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HIS
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. V. GOWRAMMA (1ST PLAINTIFF)
R/A NO.845/47-1, 3RD MAIN,
E-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
3. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
SHIPPING HOUSE,
NO.245, MADAME CAMA ROAD,
MUMBAI-400021
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
SHIPPING HOUSE
NO.245, MADAME CAMA ROAD,
MUMBAI-400021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.6186/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING
IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:16689
MFA No. 1055 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024
JUDGMENT
MFA No.1055/2024 is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6186/2023 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru challenging an order dated 11.01.2024 passed therein by which, an application (I.A.No.I) filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code was allowed-in-part and the parties were directed to maintain status-quo until disposal of the suit.
2. MFA No.1651/2024 is filed by the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.6186/2023 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, challenging the aforesaid impugned order.
3. The suit in O.S.No.6186/2023 was filed for the following reliefs:
"(a) To declare that the first defendant R.Poornima is not the heir of deceased Rajanna Rajashekhar to claim any property rights over the schedule properties belonging to him;
(b) For a decree to declare that the plaintiffs are the widow and son respectively of the deceased Rajanna Rajashekhar to succeed to the schedule -5- NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024 property on the death of Rajanna Rajashekhar and consequently to confer title upon the schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs;
(c) For a Decree declaring that the registered Gift Deed dated 05.07.2007 executed by Shri. R.Rajashekhar in favour of Smt. R.Poornima, registered as Document No.RJN-1-01510-2007-
08, Book-I, stored in CD No.RJND 111 on 05.07.2007 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru in respect of the items No.1 and 2 not binding as cancelled.
(d) Consequently, direct the Registry of this Hon'ble Court to effect entry in the name of the plaintiffs in respect of the schedule item Nos.1 and 2 properties and further order for cancellation of Katha in favour of the first defendant pertaining to the said properties which was obtained by her on the basis of the fraudulent Gift Deed dated 05.07.2007;
(e) For a Decree to declare that the Will dated 24.01.2019, vide Doc.No.RJN-3-00284-2018-
19, Book-III, stored in CD No.RJND 327, registered on 25.01.2019 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru as surprisingly once can notice that there is immense participation of the first defendant herself, her daughter and son-in-law being -6- NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024 witnesses to the said document which amounts that the said document was executed when Rajanna Rajashekar was not in sound state of mind and health and was not in a position to execute the said document and that he was with the plaintiffs. Consequently, pass order to prosecute the first defendant under Section 194 of Criminal Procedure Code for securing the illegal document in her favour:
(f) For a Decree directing the defendants 2 and 3 Authorities to release the terminal benefits payable to Late Rajanna Rajashekhar to the plaintiffs being his legal heirs;
(g) For decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, agents or anybody claiming under or through them from interfering with the right, title, interest, ownership and possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the schedule properties in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of the above suit;
(h) For appointing the first plaintiff as Receiver Commissioner to receive the rents in regard to all tenanted premises described in the schedule hereunder and submit Accounts at the hands of this Hon'ble Court for having received the amounts by way of rents;-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024
(i) To grant cost and such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
4. The plaintiff No.1 is the widow of late Rajanna Rajashekhar and plaintiff No.2 is their son. The plaintiffs claimed that the deceased Rajanna Rajashekhar was employed with Shipping Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai and he died while in service on 22.02.2023. They alleged that the defendant No.1 indulged in illegal acts to grab the properties that belonged to Rajanna Rajashekhar. They alleged that the defendant No.1 had created, concocted and fabricated several documents and also forged the signatures and also furnished false photographs to procure documents to seem as if some of the properties were transferred to her name. They alleged that the defendant No.1 had made several representations to the employer of the deceased Rajanna Rajashekhar to stop the payment of terminal benefits to them. They alleged that the defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.3657/2023 for perpetual injunction in respect of the properties that were owned by deceased Rajanna Rajashekhar which they contested. In the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024 meanwhile, the defendant No.1 filed a petition in P & S.C.No.362/2023 in respect of a Will allegedly executed by Rajanna Rajashekhar relating to the property owned by him. Later, the defendant No.1 again filed another suit in O.S.No.5130/2023 for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit item No.3 which stood in the name of Rajanna Rajashekhar. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant No.1 used the process of Court to knock off the properties. They contended that the defendant No.1 is not the heir of Rajanna Rajashekhar and it was only they who were entitled to succeed to the properties of Rajanna Rajashekhar. They also denied that Rajanna Rajashekhar had executed a Will bequeathing the suit item No.3 as contended by the defendant No.1 in P & SC No.362/2023. The plaintiff No.1 claimed that her father-in-law was a business man who was doing good business, however, he was not comfortable with the defendant No.1 interfering with the business and that he was not in good terms with his son-in
-law. Therefore, he did not give away any properties to the defendant No.1. But defendant No.1 tried to exploit the situation to gain monetarily. They alleged that Rajanna Rajashekhar joined his father in the business for some time and -9- NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024 thereafter at the instance of the defendant No.1, the business was closed. The plaintiff No.1 alleged that her father-in-law retained all the properties and since he had utmost affection and love towards his son, he had allowed the properties to be retained by Rajanna Rajashekhar by executing a deed of gift. They claimed that the suit item Nos.1 and 2 was gifted to Rajanna Rajashekhar and he was represented by his mother B.Venkatalakshmamma. They contended that the Will dated 04.12.2003 executed by Smt. Venkatalakshmamma in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of site Nos.845 & 846 was concocted by the defendant No.1. They alleged that the Will dated 04.12.2003 therefore did not confer any right, title or interest on the defendant No.1. With these and other contentions, the plaintiffs sought for the aforesaid reliefs. Along with the plaint, an application was filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant No.1/ her agent, servant or anybody claiming under or through her from attempting to interfere or attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever from the suit properties and to receive the rents from the tenants in occupation of the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024 properties and also from managing the properties. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1 who alleged that the plaintiffs were never residing with Rajanna Rajashekhar and that the plaintiff No.1 had deserted him. She contended that the deceased Rajanna Rajashekhar had executed a Will bequeathing the suit item No.3 in her favour and since that was the absolute property of Rajanna Rajashekhar, she had succeeded to the said property. In so far as suit item Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, she contended that those properties were gifted by Rajanna Rajashekhar in the year 2007 and the suit item No.4 was the property which belonged to her mother who executed a Will in the year 2003. She therefore, contends that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in any of the suit schedule properties. In so far as item No.3 is concerned, she claimed that Rajanna Rajashekhar had executed a Will in her favour and therefore, she had succeeded to the said property too. The application for injunction was also resisted on the same ground. The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order allowed the application-in-part and directed the parties to maintain status-quo, on the ground that the cause title mentioned in the suit indicated that the plaintiffs were residing
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024 in a portion of the suit item No.4. While, the suit item Nos.1 and 2 were vacant sites. It further held that the defendants are also residing in suit item No.4 and the defendant No.1 admitted that she had not dispossessed the plaintiffs from the portion of the premises where the plaintiffs were residing and that she would evict the plaintiffs in accordance with law. It noticed the Will propounded by the defendant No.1 allegedly executed by Rajanna Rajashekhar, therefore, it held that the ownership, right, title and interest of the plaintiffs is wished away, had to be decided in P & S.C. No.362/2023 filed by the defendant No.1 and therefore, directed both the parties to maintain status-quo until the disposal of the suit.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have filed these appeals.
6. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the antecedent title of Rajanna Rajashekhar in respect of suit item No.3 is not in dispute. He contended that the suit item No.3 comprised of a building which is let out to the tenants and therefore, until the defendant No.1 established her right in respect of suit item No.3, the plaintiffs being the heirs
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024 apparent, are entitled to collect the rents. He further contended that the plaintiffs are residing in a portion of the suit item No.4 and therefore, they are entitled to continue in their possession.
7. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 contended that the defendant No.1 is willing to give away the suit item No.3 towards full and final settlement of all the claims of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule properties. Since this offer made by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 was not acceptable, the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 contended that suit item Nos.1 and 2 was gifted by Rajanna Rajashekhar at an undisputed point of time in the year 2007 and therefore, unless the plaintiffs challenged the gift deed executed in her favour, she is entitled to continue in the possession of suit item Nos.1 and 2. She contended that suit item No.3 was bequeathed by Rajanna Rajashekhar in the year 2019 and after his death, she succeeded to the property and she is entitled to continue in possession. She further contended that in so far as suit item No.4 is concerned, that property belonged to her mother and that she had executed a Will in the year 2003 conveying the said property in her favour and therefore, she is entitled to continue in possession of the said
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024 property and also to collect rent. She contends that the defendant No.1 had raised a loan from the LIC housing corporation to construct a building on suit item No.4 and that the rents earned from the tenants in the building are routed to clear the loan. Therefore, she submits that granting an order of injunction would cause hardship to the defendant No.1.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for the defendants No.1.
9. A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 goes to show that the defendant No.1 was claiming title to the suit item Nos.1 and 2 based on a gift allegedly executed by Rajanna Rajashekhar in the year 2007. Since the title to the said property stood vested, soon after execution of the gift deed, the defendant No.1 is deemed to be the owner of the suit item Nos.1 and 2 until the valid execution is disproved in accordance with law. Therefore, the defendant No.1 is entitled to continue in possession of suit item Nos.1 and 2 and also enjoy the benefits accruing there from.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024
10. In so far as suit item No.3 is concerned, the plaintiffs being the wife and son of Rajanna Rajashekhar, would have succeeded to the suit property, but for the Will propounded by the defendant No.1. Therefore, until the defendant No.1 established the lawful and valid execution of the Will in respect of the suit item No.3, the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the rents from the tenants in the suit item No.3 until the disposal of the suit. In so far as item No.4 is concerned, since it is the case of the defendant No.1 that the said property belonged to her mother and a Will was executed by her mother in the year 2003 in her favour and as the plaintiffs are not the legal representatives of the mother of defendant No.1, they cannot lay a claim at this stage to proceed against her. However, since the defendant No.1 admitted that plaintiffs are residing in a portion of suit item No.4 and the plaintiffs agreed to vacate the portion of suit item No.4 occupied by them, ends of justice would be met if reasonable time is given to the plaintiffs to vacate the premises occupied by them in suit item No.4, subject to they filing an appropriate affidavit.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024
11. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court must have considered the case of the plaintiffs from this perspective rather than blindly directing the parties to maintain status-quo, without indicating the nature of the status-quo that had to be maintained.
12. In view of the above, these appeals are allowed in part. The application (I.A.No.1) filed by the plaintiffs for interim injunction is allowed-in-part and the defendant No.1 or any person claiming under the defendant No.1, is/are, restrained from interfering with the right of the plaintiff to collect the rents from the tenants in the suit item No.3.
13. It is made clear that the above arrangement is subject to the outcome of the suit and the Trial Court shall decide the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
14. At this stage, a request was made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in MFA No.1055/2024 that the appellant No.1 be directed to shift from the suit item No.4 to a vacant portion of suit item No.3.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16689 MFA No. 1055 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1651 of 2024
15. The appellants in MFA No.1055/2024 who are present in person have today filed an affidavit undertaking to shift from the suit item No.4 to suit item No.3 within three months from today.
16. The said affidavit is taken on record.
17. In that view of the matter, the appellants in MFA No.1055/2024 are directed to vacate the premises in their occupation at suit item No.4 within three months as undertaken by them.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ-Para 1 to 13 SMA-Para 14 to 17 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57