Smt K P Sukanya vs Sri Thimmegowda @ Puttaswamy Gowda on 16 July, 2013

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt K P Sukanya vs Sri Thimmegowda @ Puttaswamy Gowda on 16 July, 2013

Bench: Ravi Malimath

                            1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE


             ON THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2013


                         BEFORE


        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH


       WRIT PETITION NO.41149 OF 2011(GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

Smt.K.P.Sukanya
W/o K.S.Ravikumar
Aged about 34 years
R/o Kalasinda Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
C.R.Patna Taluk.                      ...PETITIONER

(By Sri Halesha R.G., Advocate)

AND:

   1. Sri Thimmegowda
      @ Puttaswamy Gowda
      S/o late Subbegowda
      Aged about 56 years

   2. Sri K.P.Shashidhara
      S/o Thimmegowda @
      Puttaswamy
      Aged about 39 years
                              2




  3. Sri K.P.Venkatesha
     S/o Thimmegowda @
     Puttaswamy Gowda,
     Aged about 32 years

     Respondents 1 to 3
     R/o Kalasinda, Kasaba Hobli,
     Channarayapatna Taluk.


  4. Smt.K.P.Manjula
     W/o G.P.Puttaraju, Aged about 36 years
     R/o Gandasi & Hobli,
     Arasikere Taluk.

  5. Sri D.S.Sathyanarayana
     S/o late Sooregowda
     Aged about 50 years

  6. Smt.G.R.Bhagya
     W/o D.S.Satyanarayana
     Aged about 45 years
     Defendant No.5 & 6 R/o
     No.572, Chandana Nilaya,
     Shankaripuram, Opp to Shivananda
     Vidyashale, Hassan City.      ...RESPONDENTS

(By Sri Suresh, Advocate, for R-1 to 4, Sri Sathish,
Advocate for Sri Kempe Gowda, Advocate for C/R5 & R6, )

                          *****

      This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
modified order by setting aside the trial Court order in
MA.No.1/2011 dated 15.10.2011 on the file of the Fast
Track Court at Channarayapatna respect of the item No.8
as against defendant No.5 and 6 Vide Annexure-G.
                                3




       This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing
in 'B' group this day, the Court made the following:-

                           ORDER

In a suit filed by the petitioner for partition, I.A.I was filed seeking for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. The same was granted. On an appeal by the defendant the same was modified setting aside the order so far as defendant No.5 & 6 and in respect of item No.8 property. Aggrieved by he same, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the present petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents defends them impugned order.

3. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. What is sought for is an order of temporary 4 injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. It is a suit for partition. If the properties are alienated necessarily, the same would lead to multiplicity of proceedings in as much as the subsequent purchasers rights would stand affected. Under these circumstances the order passed by the appellate Court calls for interference. Consequently, the Petition is allowed. The order dated 15-10-2011 passed in MA No.1/2011 by the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna, is set aside. The order passed by the trial Court dated 4th July, 2011, passed in O.S.19/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge, Channarayapatna, is confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Rsk/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court