Smt Chandrakanthamma vs Sri B Ramakrishnaiah on 24 July, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Chandrakanthamma vs Sri B Ramakrishnaiah on 24 July, 2008

Bench: B.S.Patil

.. 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARRATAICA AT 3A.HG.ALOﬁE

DATED THIS THE 241'" DAY OF JULY 2008
BEFORE
THE HOIPBLE MEJUBTICE 5.8. PATIL

OF

M.F'.A. l\Io.61'?8 5179 as 51  '  '

 &

1.

AA Bangeldre Rural District. , . my Setty, *8/o.latc K.S.NarasimhaJ'al1 Scttgy, Smt.C mamma I W/ojatc N.K.Lakshx:u.i11arayana, Aged 65 years;

Smt.N.L.Lakshmi, W] 0. Sri. Chandrashekar, Aged 32 years; .


. Sri.N.I..Nagara_;'u,

S[o.]atc    
Agedsoycamk     %

Appcliants-1 to 3.'ia2«.£'eT' R / at Chennakcshawia Témaplc Street, Nclamangaia Tcmm an, Taluk, Bagagalpre Ru:a1'Dim:1ct. APPELLAN'l'S IN A ' A %%%%% .4 .V MFA.6178/O8 saa:.N.--Q11a'mii~ashekaxa Setty, SI o;'iateV..K.Sl.N.<s:z'asi1nhaiah Setty, 63 R;!_at.F_'ete. Pseedhi, Nola-giangaia Town as Taiuk, APPELLANT IN MFA. 6 179 I 08 _?Agcd 66 years;

Sri.N.P.Ravikiran,, S/o.N.Parthasarathy Setty, Aged 35 years;

.. 2 ..

7. Smt.N.P.S11133a, D/o.N.Parthasa:rathy Setty, Aged 30 years;

8. Srishashildmn, S/o.N.Parthasarathy Setty, Aged: 28 yeazs;

Appel]a11ta--5 to 8 are Residing at No.42] 4, 334 Main Road, Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore. AI>15I::Li;€;N'ré*,xn: 2 (By Sri.'I'.N.VishWanath, Adv.) AND:

SI1'.B.Rau1akrishnaiah, S/o.1ate Doddabyraiah, :

Aged about 53 years, V '_ Rjat No.7382, Near FWD Oﬁceg' Main Road, S-ubashnagar, ' Nelamanga1a'I'cwm, f _ ' ' Bangalore-562 "

   ' .    V V (COMMON)

Thsse    Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC

against the _oxdc=r-.<:_lated 29.03.2008 passed on I.A.Nc-.2 in ,£.}.,ﬂS.No4V_233, 85 on the ﬁle of the Principal Civil '*«Judg:V (S.r.D"zr1'.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, allowing com detiagergd the following:

ILA.I€p.2' Vumiéf (_)rd.c1= 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPU for temporary injuncﬁnn'. ' ii 'AI'h;:V-.3: on for admission, this day, the JU%!I'!' -

i:1 éll these? appeals, common qugstions of fact: and law T for consideration. The order_impug1cd is a common "<$zdcr passed after heam3_ ' g the appliqgzaﬁons tiled in the three g A ﬂMFA.61_50.fC>8~ = .. 3 ..

suits togethﬁr. Hence, these appwls are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. Appellants in these appeals are the dcfend;;x11_'t sVV':i::'.4.:4"_tV1:ieV.

suits ﬁled berm the T118' 1 Court in 0.3.1403. of 2007. P1ai11tiﬁ'~Ramakrishna1a' 21 '_ﬁ:.-lcd, . 'siiit;3". seeking speciﬁc performance of the 30.12.2005 in xespect ofthc '*r*h¢$ugh " V separate agreements wcmzcntcmd "by thé 'defcxigxiants in favour of the the terms and conditions of the' the facts and cixcumstancvtjts' of suits also being similar, 7._the__ thought it lit to hear an the appﬁmﬁoiisx % ' '."p3£:'ii'.1tiﬂ'~Iesponde11t herein in the three ésguits. passed the common onicr. has allowed the applications ﬁled injunction and has restrained the _dEfbﬁdaﬂt9;&;#i)€}13IltS herein from alienating the suit until thc disposal of the suit. The Court held that the plaintiff' had made out a puma' facie j

4. The agreement of sale dated 30.12.2005 which is entered into between the pkaintiﬁ' and the defendants is not Although the defendants have taken up a eontentieﬁ _ said agreement stood ceneellw by a_. -, subsequently by the defendants, the that the effect of such a notice "

the ageement requixed to be atVthe"'VSteiige.et'V It has further found that theme was an agreement of amount of Rs.1,00,{)OO/ with the fact that the performance of the said teehveiﬁmjenee was in ﬂavour of injunction Iestra1mng' ' the defentiantsx suit schedule property till the the Though learned counsel for the contends that there was no prime faeie mac.' H 'V gent of temporazy injunction, I do not ﬁnd any in the satd oontenhbn as admittedly under an 'u..f.a?geemeht of sale the property was agreed to be eotd after

- a sum of Rs.1,00,000/~ and the suit is based on the T agreement. The Trial' Court was right and justiﬁed in restraining the defendants from aiienating the pmperty till the 5/ -5- disposal ofthc suit as otherwise it will lead to muitifarious proceedings and the plaintiff would be denied thr: dflqm suit, if the defendants are allowed to alicnaﬁe _ during the pendcncy of the suit. 'Therefore, in view, there is no mom for interfemxige the by the Trial Court. However. die appellants submits that as the and the issues are framed, a d1Ievtm' n to ' Court to dispose of the suits

5. a,a¢1f&'ci'1L'diiVts1;a::accs involved in these the assertion made by the learned 'i:-'hf: deﬁndants axe scum' rcitizens, I ' nto ths:'['na1' Court di.spo:s§;jOi' the a puiod of eight months ﬁrm: ﬁgmdipdr a of this judgnzcnt. It is ngcdlms made by tbs Trial Court and jiéém axed me disposal of me app]1ca' tion only "g.-"3i";;"','--m "t xhavcu ezdy bearing' on the ad]ud' 1% ' of the d" . _ i:e.m'its_-.

PKS 3 sale judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court