Karnataka High Court
M/S Ramky Estates And Farms Ltd vs Smt Nanjamma on 9 April, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:15286
MFA No. 8317 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8317 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S RAMKY ESTATES AND FARMS LTD.,
(PRESENTLY RAMKY ESTATES AND FARMS LTD.,)
(A REGISTERED COMPANIES UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES
REGISTRATION ACT),
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 9TH FLOOR,
RAMKY GRANDIOSE,
GACHIBOWLI,
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT,
TELANGANA - 500 032.
AND ALSO AT
OFFICE AT NO. 25-30,
RAMKY HOUSE,
2ND CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR,
KALYAN NAGAR POST,
Digitally BENGALURU-560 043,
signed by
RAMYA D KARNATAKA.
Location: BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
HIGH
COURT OF MR. A. V. BHASKAR REDDY.
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O. LATE M. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,
GOBBARAGUNTE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:15286
MFA No. 8317 of 2024
DEVANAHALLY TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS OF R2 TO R7.
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED
26.03.2025.
2. SMT. LAKSHMI NARASAMMA
W/O. NARAYANASWAMY,
D/O. LATE M. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT MALLUR VILLAGE,
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT- 562 102.
3. SMT. ANJINAMMA
D/O. LATE M. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
GOBBARAGUNTE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLY TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123.
4. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O. LATE M. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
GOBBARAGUNTE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLY TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
5. SRI. KUMBI NARASIMHA
S/O. LATE M. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
GOBBARAGUNTE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLY TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:15286
MFA No. 8317 of 2024
6. SRI. RAGHU
S/O. LATE M. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
GOBBARAGUNTE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLY TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123.
7. SRI. ANILKUMAR
S/O. LATE M. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
GOBBARAGUNTE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLY TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH.H.D, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R7
V/O DATED 26.03.2025
SRI. P.V. ANANDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 26.03.2025, NOTICE TO R4 TO R6 IS D/W;
V/O DATED 26.03.2025, R2 TO R7 ARE TREATED AS
LR'S OF DEAD R1;
SRI. N.S BHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.
1 IN O.S.NO. 834/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI,
DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE
1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:15286
MFA No. 8317 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.834/2020 has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 06.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.834/2020 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short) thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that one M. Chikkanarayanappa was the owner of suit schedule land bearing Sy.No.77/2 to the extent of 2 acres 20 guntas by virtue of registered sale deed dated 10.07.1995. Thereafter, the said M. Chikkanarayanappa had got converted the land from agricultural into non-agricultural on 21.01.1997 by the competent authorities under the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Thereafter, the said M. Chikkanarayanappa had sold the said suit schedule land to the plaintiffon 06.02.1997 through registered sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has contended that in this way, the suit schedule land was the self acquired property of M. Chikkanarayanappa and thereafter, he sold the said land to the plaintiff on 06.02.1997.
4. The said M. Chikkanarayanappa died on 18.11.2002. Thereafter, the defendants herein by claiming that they are children of M. Chikkanarayanappa filed suit in O.S.No.536/2009 on 09.10.2009 for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds. It is stated that the said O.S.No.536/2009 was collusive one and the defendants therein have not appeared in the suit therefore, there was an ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.536/2009. Thereafter, the plaintiff in O.S.No.536/2009 filed FDP No.5/2012 seeking to execute preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.536/2009; afterwards, the plaintiff came to know that such suit and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 FDP was filed. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit in O.S.No.834/2020. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that by narrating above said facts that the suit in O.S.No.536/2009 was collusive one and decree was obtained by playing fraud on the Court as well as on the plaintiff. Further, submitted that the suit schedule land was self acquired property of M. Chikkanarayanappa therefore, he had sold the property on 06.02.1997 to the plaintiff and thereafter, 12 years 8 months later, the suit in O.S.No.536/2009 filed is barred by limitation as per the Article 109 of the Limitation Act.
5. Further submitted that in the plaint in O.S.No.536/2009, there was no pleading that the suit schedule land is ancestral and coparcener property. At paragraph No.4 in the plaint in O.S.No.536/2009, it is only pleaded that the jointness among the plaintiff and defendants, but it is not stated that the suit schedule land is coparceners property. Further submitted that in the said plaint, at paragraph No.4 it is pleaded that the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 plaintiff and defendants in O.S.No.536/2009, stated that the plaint schedule properties are inherited by the plaintiff and defendants after death of M. Chikkanarayanappa, who died on 18.11.2002. Therefore, the very pleading in the suit in O.S.No.536/2009 goes to show prima facie that the suit schedule land is not coparceners property.
6. Further submitted that as the suit schedule land was alienated on 06.02.1997, prior to the coming into force of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and before the cut-off date 16.12.2004 is not applicable since the amendment Act is made effective from 09.09.2005, the sale deed having taken place prior to amendment coming into force, the plaintiff in O.S.No.536/2009 cannot maintain suit.
7. It is further submitted that, when this being the fact, the preliminary decree obtained in O.S.No.536/2009 is by fraudulent means suppressing the facts and thus the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.536/2009 is nullity and this prima facie case is made out in the instant suit by -8- NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 praying appropriate relief in the suit and by virtue of the sale deed, the plaintiff is in possession over the suit property. Hence, the possession follows title, since the suit schedule land is a vacant land. However, without considering all these aspects, the Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application, which requires interference by this Court; therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and grant an order of temporary injunction as prayed for.
8. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS. VS.
JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 and this Court in the case of M/S. JADE GARDEN PLOT OWNER'S ASSOCIATION VS. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI AND OTHERS passed in CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.88/2024.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of M. Chikkanarayanappa and he was not exclusive owner therefore, he could not have sold the property in favour of plaintiff. Consequently, the decree passed in O.S.No.536/2009 is correct and by virtue of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.536/2009, the plaintiff's share is determined as 1/7th and subsequently in FDP No.5/2012, the share of the plaintiff and defendants in O.S.No.536/2009 are determined. This is prima facie demonstrated by the defendants in the suit and considering these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed for temporary injunction.
10. Further submitted that by virtue of the insertion of Section 6A into the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by the Karnataka Amendment, 1994, the daughter is also recognized as coparcener, which came into force from 30.07.1994. However, the alienation made on 16.02.1997
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 by M. Chikkanarayanappa is hit by Section 6A of the Hindu Succession Act (Karnataka Amendment Act). Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim absolute ownership over the suit property and therefore, in this regard, when this is the case of the defendants, the plaintiff does not have prima facie case to obtain an order of temporary injunction, which is rightly considered by the Trial Court. Hence, dismissed the application.
11. Further submitted that these issues are triable before the Trial Court and hence, the case of the defendants is more probable compared to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has failed to make prima facie case. Hence, the application filed for temporary injunction was rejected, is correct and justified. Consequently, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. Further submitted that the plaintiff except producing copy of sale deed dated 16.02.1997 has not produced any document to show that the plaintiff is in possession over the property, whereas the defendants are
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 in possession over the suit schedule land. Furthermore, the prayer made by the plaintiff in the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Therefore, the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case, thus justified the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.
13. Further, the counsel for the respondents in support of submissions, places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI. H.P.CHIKKARAMA REDDY AND ANOTHER VS. SMT. KANTHAMMA AND OTHERS passed on 14.09.2020 in C.R.P.No.431/2014.
14. Upon hearing both the parties and perusal of the material produced in this appeal, the points that would arise for my consideration:
i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out the prima facie case so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?
ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 case for balance of convenience in his favour for grant of an order of temporary injunction? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that if an order of temporary injunction cannot be granted, then the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss or injury?
All the above three points are inter-linked with each other and therefore, they are taken up for common consideration.
15. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had purchased the property through the registered sale deed dated 06.02.1997 from Sri M.Chikkanarayanappa. The said land is non-agricultural land. Therefore, there is no question of making assessment as per the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Just because, the Khatha is not effected or mutated in the name of plaintiff, cannot take away the right of ownership of the plaintiff. One of the daughter of Sri M.Chikkanarayanappa has filed a suit in O.S.No.536/2009 on 09.10.2009 for partition and
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 separate possession. The said suit in O.S.No.536/2009 was filed on 09.10.2009 after 12 years and 8 months from the date of registered sale deed dated 06.07.1997. This is one of the circumstances to consider as to whether the suit in O.S.No.536/2009 is filed within the period of limitation or not as per Article 109 of Limitation Act.
16. Further, in O.S.No.536/2009 the plaintiff being a daughter of Sri M.Chikkanarayanappa has not stated that the suit property is co-parcenary property. At Para No.4 in the plaint, the jointness of the family is stated, but there is no pleading to the effect that the suit property is co-parcenary property. Furthermore, the plaintiff has made pleading to the effect that the plaintiff and defendants have inherited the property after the death of Sri M.Chikkanarayanappa who died on 18.11.2002. Therefore, in O.S.No.536/2009 the claim of inheritance is made after the death of Sri M.Chikkanarayanappa on 18.11.2002. If it is the case of plaintiff in O.S.No.536/2009 that the suit schedule land is co-
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 parcenary property, then that would have been pleaded and succession is from by birth, but not after the death of Sri M.Chikkanarayanappa. Furthermore, O.S.No.536/2009 is not a contested one. All the defendants in O.S.No.536/2009 were placed exparte. Therefore, an exparte preliminary decree came to be passed in O.S.No.536/2009. Admittedly, the plaintiff in O.S.No.834/2020 was not a party in O.S.No.536/2009. Therefore, here there is a rival claim by the plaintiff for the suit land is by virtue of registered sale deed dated 06.07.1997, whereas the defendants herein are claiming their right over the suit land by virtue of preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.536/2009. Therefore, upon assessing the probability in this regard as the case is made out by both the plaintiff and defendants, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case.
17. Further, the plaintiff has contended that the decree in O.S.No.536/2009 is obtained by playing fraud by not impleading the plaintiff herein as party in the said suit.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 Furthermore, the suit in O.S.No.536/2009 is filed after 12 years and 8 months from the date of registered sale deed dated 06.07.1997. Whether the preliminary decree obtained in O.S.No.536/2009 is by virtue of fraud or not is the question for trial in the suit, but at this stage the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case.
18. Considering the decision of this Court in CRP.No.431/2014 (stated supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants that inserting Section 6A to Hindu Succession Act by Karnataka Amendment Act is in regard to co-parcenary property. Though, this provision came into force from 19.04.1994 recognizing the daughter is co-parcenary entitling equal share as that of son, but in the co-parcenary property the same holds good after the amendment made by the Central Government.
19. Here the condition precedent for application of these amendments are parties shall be co-parcenars and
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 property must be co-parcenary property. Though, the daughter is recognized as co-parcener, but the claim of share by the daughter is not in co-parcenary property. But in O.S.No.536/2009, there is no pleading that the property is co-parcenary property. But prima facie, the plaintiff has shown that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule land by way of registered sale deed dated 06.02.1997. Therefore, the claim made in O.S.No.536/2009 perhaps maybe as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and applicability of Section 6 (Central Amendment) or Section 6A of the Act is applicable or not is a matter for trial in the suit. Therefore, in this regard, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case.
20. Admittedly, the suit land is vacant land. Considering who is in possession over the property is concerned, after taking note of the rival claim made by the plaintiff and defendants that they are in possession of property, in case of the vacant land, possession follows title. In this regard, I place reliance on the judgment of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs& Ors1.
21. Therefore, when considering the rival claim of ownership by the plaintiff and defendants herein as above discussed, the plaintiff's claim is based on the title having obtained through the registered sale deed, whereas the defendants are claiming title through the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.536/2009. In this regard, the possession follows title. Therefore, upon considering the above said factors as admitted by both the parties in the above said eventualities, the plaintiff is successful in making a prima facie case and in this regard, the trial Court has not considered the application in its true and correct prospective manner in the background of factual matrix involved in the case. Therefore, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and accordingly, balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff and since, the plaintiff has acquired the property by way of registered 1 AIR 2008 SC 2033
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024 sale deed and the factor of possession follows title and if temporary injunction is not granted, then more loss and injury would be to the plaintiff than the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of an order of temporary injunction. Accordingly, it is granted. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative. Therefore, the appeal succeeds.
22. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the application for temporary injunction is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the appeal is to be allowed by granting an order of temporary injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 06.11.2023 made on I.A.No.1 filed in O.S.No.834/2020 pending on the file of Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, is hereby set aside.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15286 MFA No. 8317 of 2024
(iii) The order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 7 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the converted land bearing Sy.No.77/2 measuring 2A 20G of Avathi Village is granted in favour of plaintiff against the defendants.
(iv) No order as to costs.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
SRA: Para: 1 to 14
PB: Para: 15 to end
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32