Karnataka High Court
M Chinnappa vs Adarsha Enterprises on 29 June, 2011
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
I
IN 'I'HE :~-::<::H COURT 0:? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE:
:3ATE:> THIS THE 29% DAY OF JUNE 29; L V.
BEFORE
THE: E~£QN'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. N. ¥7ENUG{)PAj{;5x {:'§.{:2'J_x?1Z'?,»f§s;'
M.P'.A.NO. 10245/AIO}](<;€PCA}x 7
M.F.A.NO. 1o24A5/ 10A(c1>c)j A
BETWEEN
1. M.CHINNAPPA A ~ _
S/O LATE MUNIYA_1?_PA_£€;§: vAE%fVBz5--;iA1*£* 1 ._
AGED ABQUf_1_' 65:YE:A:2§=:. .' ' I «.
2. SMT.
RV/O3LA'I{'E'_PULEAP'P'g3,'
AGED 'Aj3z:)ujtf 53.,YE)ARS«
3. SR1 PA_,jA:%.2NA"'« "
$2.0 LATE M«::N1iz;ApAp.A ABBAIAH
AGED ABOUT" 57.. YEARS
4. '$12.1 RAMANJL
'as,/.0 LATE: EV'§'U.NE':("APPA @ ABBAIAH
' AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
I S:1?§§"-E{%X:Ix}I;%.€:E{ANDRAg
. "~'s/0--:;g§;rE; MUNIYAPPA ABBALAH
A{_3~;::13 ,;i\BQU'E' 47 YEARS
- . . $3311" PU RUSHQTHAMA
A 'T S/' Q LATE MUNEYAVPPEE ABBAIAH
_A.-'AG EB ABOUT 53 YEARS
. SRE SEA£A:'\§?<;AR
iS;'C¥ L2~'%TI§ A»'£Ufi:':'APPA 2'£Ei§§33-'i£f:}'§
iii} z~'§§:'3*C}§.§'E' 53 Y§£E%.?€S
L)
ALL ARE R/ATINOE
KAMALAM MA LAYOUT
YELAHAN KIA TOWN
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
{By SR1 \/'E:NKA'i'ES}i P. DALWAI, _
FOR M/S SRIVARRU LAW FIRM ASS'I'E:3_._}
AND
I. ADARSHA ENTERPRISES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS oPPI::P;-AT--_ I ,
No.10/IIGR0UND'PL0QRI'~ _
LAKSHMINARAYANA, C.QnvIIPLIEP:'~~.v ' . _
PALACE RQPID, PgANGAI,Q4R~I:::52 -
REP. BP_''IT:;+;,PARI*NER'''' ''
MR.K,F<A"ME-SH " ..j" »
S/OE:RIE3H.NAiE3I}L_"Vf «
2. SMT, sARm,z§I»IMA._ ._ -
W',:iQ LATE: M.UNiKRIE§H.NAPPA
AGED ABOUT55 .YEARS
R/AT'NO;'5,
; 'Iizx.I\zIALAIa'II»I2x LAYOUT.
_' "'«:.':'P;I;AI;IANKA TQTWN,
" B}\.NG}xLORE NQRTH TALUK.
" P. REZSPQNDENTS
{COMMON}
{B_jr---SREYU":"I~§~S SHEVCEOOR 5: KAE\«'IA"i'HI AI)vs..
FOR LAW Ass"Ps., PQR PI;
- "SR: PRAK'ASE~I T. HEBBAR, ADP. FOR R2)
,'EViFA NQJO245,/19 ES FILED U/GREEK 43 RULE, Mr}
-- '<:;'*F 'CAPCI AGAINST THE OREBER £}:"~'CFED 2?.1G,2Gi{} PASSED
GIN I,&.§'«§QIE IN O,33.NO.é1269f£G CIN 'YfiE2 FILE 3? THE XXH
"';é§DI}LI CITY CEVEL c}"£jDC:EZ. EE£§QfiEA®E€%;, ?ARTLY
" ;'3~J_,L€:3'v'§EI"é€} EI;'1.N{).§ FELEEE} U/C} 39 RULE; E 2 45.}? C98
ékffii} i}iRE%I€'T§NG TE"i§*Z F:?xR'i'§E:;§ ""1? ,?;§~{§*ZE;3'~€ TC? MRENTAEN
Pw@QMmQmx%.'
DJ
sTA'ms QUC) AS TO TE~£E NATURE am)
SUIT PROPERTIES. 1-
mm E\}O.102::15,/IQ ES» E'1LED:'».U/CBAPAFJEAEQ.Q';-31"£:f}'«
OF cpc, AGAEEST 'I'H}':1 ORDER DA'r:~:_:)'--:2_;a 1e.:a;:> :0, E%A&.>S:"Z'{D
ON 1.A'No.2 IN Q_S.NO.4~269/»1G___C)N 'H-.:i_;:' FILE/CFE' me ;,><><1: _ T.
ADDL, CETY €I\';I§1 JUDe5;,"~~..%»BANGALQR:5:."~--, VPARTLY
ALLQWING £.A.E\30. 2 FILED U/é;3._39_RULe a: 8: 2gOF CFC
AND DIRECTING pART1e3..ffHE.RE:1N 31:3. MAINTAIN
STATUES QUO AS TO "i'_I%_~IE: N1.x*rL3RE14._,é.:§:B.%P0ssEssI0N OF
SUIT PROPERTIES. '-- _
THESE APPEALS...,C'€Z)NIIN{3 "C:N"*w~F_€;'>'R ADMISSIGN
THIS DAY1 THE: .C3AQ"L_IRT§:DEL§3fE,RE2IJ ffHE":FOLLQW1NG;
_ M :>_1\'z= 'J :3 Lye ME: N T
Withthe-'C:>f1See11te"esf1ear::.eci_c€>ur1se§ an both sides.
these ap pea_L3.aré: ¢ih«ea1*{i 'fer fi1'1al-- disposal.
2. " 4'i3».€s'peiifi:e:1;{ "No. 1 has instituted
the 211$ respondent and the
..A"*ap§3efi2£:§'tsEdefendeifiis in the City Civil Court, suit is for passing judgment and decree ofAp4erpe{4:.§_:3:.- i;1jun<:tien. I,A.N<;:>S,1 and 2 were filed by Wthe p'ia.ii§:tiff.respendent, No.1 herein, to restrain the _«;iefe;i'dants from a1ienat.ir:;g; She Sufi: preperéies ané from _Mi;é'{.e§feri;2g with the p::sses;s§e:": 952151 erxjzgrmezzi {)5 'ghee exgié; p§<>;::e§%;ei:%e E55: fiée ;3§z:i.r:i:if§I '§'h_e ap§2e§21:1§e vshe are V" i w the ciefei'idants~2 to 8 in the suit' have statement; and also ob_;'eetions ie I.As.1 T «trizsti Court, crozisidering I.As.1 and ariicéii questiiens raised need tria1_rand t}ier'ei':)re.eV=€i;;»s=:V'Vplaifitiff has prima faeie ease, e111o\;x7e'cfii'e»i:}..s'f1 aiir,:_1 it directed both parties.' es to the nature and possessioii .~'iE';_TLvjiiA£f'.:»@_i'Qp€I'}[i€S and restrained the suit properties in any the suit. These appeaieu the said Common order. interim order of stay an 15.4.11. -
».Leariie'd:'eeunse1 appearing for the ::1ppeHanf:s ».t"i:.;_:tj,--.. the suit instituted in the triai Court is by fesortiiffig tie suppression of material faete and based 'V on the"i"§1aii1ipuiat.ed doeurnentsi, in View ef which, the is not justified in heiciing that the plaintiff Exes Ha pf"iEEi'c,'i faeie ease and as 2: restgiit, C§fi:F€TC?§€C§ the V' jeeiriiies tie mairitiain et;at:1:~3~Qt:§>. Lezzmed ateuiisei 3E,i§}fi3§if.i,£?C§ é%h}is5.:%{,, the eaeést {ii the §:1§3:}€g%EE1{,S§; <i,iei'e::dan:e~2 / 'J;
to 8, has met bean Corisiciered in the c<>rr'¢ijt"p§3r§é_p~e:::*:i*¢e~ _ by '(ha tiriai Court: mid h€}C1C{"f, ii'i:.;>ii_gnr::d_' o1jié'i*' is"« perverse and illegaii L€E1I'i3€3d c<j'2.i1is;.€i S1;i;i§iiIiAit'[f;3Ci the appsilarits are in a::iuai"'§§s.s€s§iGn_V_ éz11?£:.'jiZiV};"V'7Ii"1s€'I'}'f. of the suit: pr0;3eriies.éi1a..<j rifiiiner of possession, in View not have maintained *_~ an order of ternpora1~y5;_'>:;Q'Li'::fctV_' its possession or alienatiian. Qf"§_1'i€":é:::__Ii}; pI:L3.p'E3I;"Ei€-9,," .
4." u "Leai'n_éd¥.f- "i:Q'i;1iri95e1 appearing for the 15' :0-sp0nii€:ii;;";:iiai1;:tiii., on the Other hand made .""-SU<EJl'1;fiSi~SiOfiS in sii'fjf5ort of the findings and Conclusion
-._0:f L6,, in the orders passed on IASJ and ' 5. H "~'T.f_'Eie trial Court hag i"1(}iZ1iC€d thaii there is a serieiis <:;_0r:i,roiversy about {ha documenis reaiied upari by "psiziini/Eff. ii: has a/E30 observed iihaii the documéntis i~}3iit>d "L1p{)i"i by {is:fe3i:<i21:ii:s~2. to 8 evicieiiéxéss iiiai iht:
§§23ii%f1§;,§f§ is i"i{}i', .2: §3sii*i:§; i:::> i:;h%:% $:5im£3 igrsii iii.) i/i?i»::+ sziiés {E5635} 6 of the plaintiff, the ciefendants~2 to 8 were It has observed that the fflélfilfil' is one wherezjifi ' are in fluid state and hsnce it isd,iffica1:1:i"i,€)"
correct picture. It has also thééfidsaiiij.' cerrtifictate of late: ML::1ik1'isk1'n4appa":0"€vidac'f1:;;s, _t}1af; died an 23.4.98 was not pr0d 1ie.sfsd and i'r3 alsvsence of such r;ic:>cument,, it is d__if§i_c::u1i tQ:C'0.r_1::1i1-file either way,
6. Ha&fi§1g_ _ heiaféi' ~:$::'é:§§1;1nse1 on both siciess in 11j_y--~ not considered I.As,1 and 'laafspsctive. Merely because this plaintiff facie case, points 2 and 8 cauld néé't.._fiaVe' iaééa' in favour of the piamtiff, xvithgjtiia.:€f€r€:3§fé to {he materials placed on recerd by jaarties and reasoning out as to how the §LZ13'i'é1__¥1{Eé' «%§{__c:'::g'£2"ix*€:1i€nC€ hes in favour of plaintiff and f..ha %* 'p'§aini£ff Weuid suffer irrfsparabie less and ._ir1j:L1__Ify, if an srder sf temporary injunciien is not passed. ."E'7§1'é"A'§n1pz1g::a§i {}1'"{i€3I" fails sllsfi 0? the §nani:Ea,£@:3«' VV "':*§3q::§z*<i%:z1<->:":ts iii; Repé; in visw by a Cami'? whilst E aw ml passing an orcier of teInp{>:'ary injuritijtion. Be m egg.
7'. The piaint scthe<:iu1€:' "h§::s«A_three.x i£enf;S:"
properties. According to the p1ai:r'1.tifi',.V_;che :h1;f¢.g».;te§1;:Mé,* properties Shawn in the piailafisehedule'were 'eofiifertved V for n0n~agri(:u1tura1 §,lS.§ by e':-'iii-peteri't 'autherity an 19.9.03. Indisputedlf; order was cancelled on on the ground 'V in the matter obtaining.Ve£jfi{fe}=és.;on.-._:'.' to Sri Ravindranath Kamafh, has been questioned before t.1*'1ee:')e3;)11xt}.f_ and the matter is still perggjgfirigeg.
3 to the appeilants/defendants, the are agrieulturai iands. it is evieient fmm 'gihe pEa;{fi.i; and the affidavit in Support ef LASK: and 2, "'i 'Lh:b1{"A€4he piaimiff has; :10: t.a}<:e:: up any deveiapmeniai a:§';:s§ {<3 éevelep the pE::1:n%: seheduie preperiy, It :3 salsa 3:325 the {1%:s2s2se% <35' {he gziairfiiff Eihafé', 233:; g3re;a:;1§a:i<::«:: wag i E v' undertaken to develop the plaimf eehedule propezjifiee. Keeping in View the fact that the emit is req1iifed'_' _ tried and decided, the best C(}L1I'S€ of E1C'i'i{)f1:.::iiwf)'V'§i:I"(}§€C£ the interest; of both parties is t0v=.:11af;1<1t.é;iIi'ee.stefus%'tj:2_Q the suit property as it exists as 0n'ki_ai:e Vant§1"'i.¥;::ve.e_Vsui.': be tried and decided €Xp€difihOUS1h'}EV;-,E€:1'E any before the closure of Courts 'x-<;'2;eeLiiQn w_e.f. from 18.12.11. Without of the rival contentions, *-_§11e:~;e'ap15--ee.}s"Sta"n.d diseased of as follows:
-------- éi'm;.ea}.e'--._e1re'"-allewed in part and the ' 'ir;2pu§1:.ed»e.ef«:1e'r iehmodified. iii. _ '}§e1'vh"'ihe.'V'pertiee are hereby directed to "'m_aintaviuh"'status~qu0 of three items of plaint ~ "ee'hveduie properties ie, as to the nature and . '"a,ie«:; possession axle} they shall net encumber or elienafe the suit prepertiese in any mannease (EH the suit is deeiéed by me trial Cziuri.
:11. V iv.
The suit being far one perpetual 3 the pleadings bseing' Completé Vbeen raisssd for tria §§mMthe '_ adduce and '-
Within 45 days the of V the suit. "i'1'1e p1é{i'1T1tii'f éhpuid éxtehd ready {:0~0perati0:i ' the .'Et:'ia1_«'('3.<ju.f':- by keeping its reptvfientafifiixre iighoé d~épQs'eS;r1h the matter in
1.-i:'1;'ér*--;.._(f35cT§ui_ft," v1;i*1'e 'ijearing dates.
. i::ppeflé.n_fs}ciefefidants should <:ross~ 2 'e:§aVr12i'n;§:VVth€--_piai':1tiffs witnesses and enable = 'close the plaintiffs side of exri'&€_Ii§e Within 45 days from the date the is posted for plaintiffs c~:vider1Ce. appellants/defendant/s should adduce ' A:i:iTd Complete their side of evidence within 45 days {ram {E16 date the piaintiffs side of evicicincztéz is ciased, The plaimiff shouié {f'E"(}S$~€X8.:"E'1§f1€', {E153 fiéferflaxitatsafwiinssséés ::IiiVh§VV:: f',i§'I1{'§ 21iE:><.a2:>:{1. if 9/§*:h£%:* as? {he 1 E ':3 gm /9' / ii} parties did 30% make use cf the eepertagnitgf and eemplete their respective eeidenee/erase-eXar1:inatie:1g fhegfi .'mf}1e'Vi'i3f:°eii'e "
thee" right fie see}:-< 'tir*ae fer further preceedings.
The parties are direei:e£3;'e'e:.*¥§§»ap1;)Vheé;;'_ stfiai Court 0:1 4.7.11 anei reeeive V The trial 4.7.11 and proceed is new pending and deeieie any event before 1'71 12ffi._1, the observations made by it in the imp-ug1i1ed"0f:ii.e1'.--. ' '3'«:.C§:f1*:e_ntie'iiev...<1f«'both parties are kept epen fer V' 'e:33:isé.c_¥ez:ai::¥ ' --_ is direeied lie return the LCR :0 the trial % e JC.e?:;'i fariemte, W Se?/e EESESE V' "re.