Karnataka High Court
Mrs Arti Malhotra vs Mr S D Muthu on 8 July, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
M.F.A. No.3319/2012 (CPC)
C/w. M.F.A.Nos.7353 & 7354/2013 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
MRS ARTI MALHOTRA
D/O LATE J.K.MALHOTHRA,
50 YEARS, R/AT FIRST FLOOR,
ELIZAMANOR,
20/1-3, LAVELLE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001. .. APPELLANT
(COMMON IN ALL APPEALS)
(By Sri. B N SHIVANNA & ASSOCIATES )
AND :
1. MR S D MUTHU
S/O P.M.SADASIVAN,
MAJOR, R/AT NO.95,
RAVI PRAKASH NAGAR,
KONENA AGRAHARA,
BANGALORE-560017
2. MRS S RUKMINIYAMMA
W/O LATE S RUDRESAN,
W/O LATE S RUDRESHAN,
R/AT NO.103,
THIMMA REDDY LAYOUT,
MURUGESHPALYA,
BANGALORE-560017
3. MR S.R.MAHENDRAN
S/O LATE S RUDRESAN,
R/AT NO.103,
THIMMA REDDY LAYOUT,
2
MURUGESHPALYA, BANGALORE.
4. MR S R SUKUMARAN
S/O LATE S RUDRESAN,
R/AT NO.103,
THIMMA REDDY LAYOUT,
MURUGESHPALYA, BANGALORE.
5. MR M S JAYARAM
S/O P M SADASIVAN,
R/AT NO.69, 17TH MAIN
5TH CROSS,
HAL II STAGE, KODIHALLI,
BANGALORE-560008.
6. MR M V RAMAIAH REDDY
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
7. MR N MUNI REDDY
S/O LATE V NAGAPPA REDDY,
8. MR N VENUGOPAL REDDY
S/O LATE V NAGAPPA REDDY,
9. MR K SHAMANNA REDDY
S/O LATE V NAGAPPA REDDY,
10. MR V KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE V NAGAPPA REDDY,
RESPONDENTS 6 TO 10 ARE
R/AT NO.9.MUNNE KOLALA VILLAGE,
MARATHAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560037
11. MR NAGARAJ (M.T. NAGARAJ)
57 yrs, S/O SRI NAGAPPA,
R/AT NO.69, MANJUNATHA NILAYA,
GARUDACHAR PALYA,
MAHADEVAPURA PSOT,
K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE.
12. MR PRATAPKUMAR REDDY
PROPRIETOR OF M/S SAMITHA
CONSTRUCTIONS,
R/AT 7TH FLOOR,
ADEL FAIR, PAID LAYOUT,
3
OPP:BENNAGANAHALLI FLY OVER,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
BANGALORE.
13. M/S SAMITHA CONSTRUCTIONS
R/AT 7TH FLOOR, ADEL FAIR, PAID LAYOUT,
OPP:BENNAGANAHALLI FLY OVER,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MANAGING DIRECTOR/DIRECTOR
14. MR P V SRIHARI NAIDU
S/O LATE P VENKATAPATHI NAIDU
42 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, 1ST FLOOR,
JAYARAM BUILDING,
RAMAMANDIRA ROAD,
YELECHENAHALLI,
BANGALORE.
15. MRS P REVATHI
W/O LATE P V SRIHARI NAIDU
R/AT NO.16, 1ST FLOOR,
JAYARAM BUILDING,
RAMAMANDIRA ROAD,
YELECHENAHALLI,
BANGALORE.
16. MR N NAGARAJ
55 yrs, S/O A NARAYANA RAO
R/AT NO.31, NANJE GOWDA STREET,
DODDAMAVALLI,
BANGALORE-560004
17. MR N RAVIPRAKASH
S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31,
NANJE GOWDA STREET,
DODDAMAVALLI,
BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENTS
(COMMON IN ALL APPEALS)
( By Sri Umashankar M.N., Advocate for
C/R-11-13, Sri A.S.Mahesh, Advocate
For R-11 and Sri Nishanth A.V.,
Advocate for R-16-17)
4
These Appeals are filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (n) of
CPC against the order dated 25.2.2012 passed on I.A.No.1, 2
and 3 in O.S.No.8513/2011 on the file of 22nd Addl.City Civil
Judge, Bangalore.
These Appeals are coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
These Appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned XXII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dated 25th February 2012 in O.S.No.8513/2011 on I.As.1 to 3 filed by the plaintiff-appellant. I.A.1 is filed for granting of temporary injunction against the defendants and directing them not to put up any construction on the suit property. I.A.2 is filed for granting temporary injunction restraining the Sub-Registrar from registering any Deed pertaining to the suit property and I.A3 is filed seeking permission to put up notice board on the property. By the impugned order, trail Court dismissed the said three applications. Hence, appellant is before this Court.
2. The suit schedule property is the land bearing Survey No.64, measuring 5 acres 14 guntas, situated at Toobarahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
5
3. It appears, earlier this Court stayed the order of the trial Court vacating the interim order granted by it. In the meanwhile, parties have approached the Supreme Court and Supreme Court while directing this Court to consider the matter within three months, dismissed the SLP. However, that order is said to have been communicated to this Court during January 2014. Since the roaster was in some other Bench and only as per the roaster the case is posted before this court on the reopening of the Court after summer vacation.
Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.
4. In the course of arguments, it is brought on record that there is one more matter pending in Appeal for disposal. However, in the meanwhile, it is suggested for negotiation.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant had entered an Agreement of Sale in respect of suit schedule property on 4th September 1994 and entire sale consideration of Rs.82 lakhs has been paid to the respondents. Despite that, there are alienations being made in favour of subsequent purchaser and hence, by filing the applications a 6 direction was sought to the Sub-Registrar not to register the documents and also for putting up Notice Board on the property.
6. It appears, earlier the trial Court on hearing has issued an interim order of injunction. Subsequently, the same came to be vacated. As against this, plaintiff filed another application for vacating the ex-parte injunction order and that is yet to be considered by the trial Court.
7. Earlier an attempt was made by this Court by putting some suggestions with regard to settlement of the matter amicably. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, appellant is not ready to accept the offer which is said to have been made by the respondents. According to him, in the year 1994 itself the entire sale consideration of Rs.84 lakhs has been paid and only registration was pending. He further submits that transaction with regard to alienating the property in favour of subsequent purchaser has taken place which is detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff and the subsequent purchasers are either sitting MLAs and with the 7 help of rowdy elements, they are threatening the appellant who is a lady. He further submitted that, if the sale consideration paid is kept in fixed deposit, it would have earned higher rate of interest i.e., nearly around Rs.14 crores. He also submitted that despite an interim order granted by Court, respondents have proceeded to put up construction, thereby violating the order of the Court. Hence, he suggested that out of 318 flats which are built on the suit schedule property, the appellant is agreeable to receive at least 15% of the built up area, if not, an amount of Rs.13.5 crores is to be paid to her or else, the trial Court be directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no violation of injunction order granted by this Court and they are ready to spare 5 flats and not more than that and there is no prima facie case made out by the appellant to entertain these appeals and accordingly, sought dismissal of same.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saradamani 8 Kandappan -vs- S.Rajalakshmi and others { 2011 (12) SCC 18} wherein it is held that where time was specified for payment of sale price but not in regard to execution of sale deed, time will be of essence only with reference to payment of sale price but not in regard to execution of sale deed. The contention of the appellant is that she has paid the entire sale consideration and there is breach of promise and there is life threat to her.
9. If there is such life threat, appellant can very well lodge a complaint to the Commissioner of Police and seek necessary protection. So far as dealing of the matter by the trial Court is concerned, it shall expedite the matter and dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, if any constructions are made after the stay order of this Court, that could be looked into by the trial Court and appellant is also at liberty to move for contempt of Court. However, there appears to be a prima facie case made out by the plaintiff having discharged her obligation of making payment and only part performance of the contract i.e., registration of sale was pending and the same shall be taken note of by the trial Court while deciding the matter. 9
It is also open for the parties to negotiate either with regard to giving 15% of developed property to the plaintiff or amount to be paid as per the understanding or else the parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the matter.
IAs filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the trial Court are allowed and respondents are directed not to further alienate the property pending disposal of the suit or pending settlement between the parties.
With the above observations, Appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bk/-