Karnataka High Court
Shri G Narayana @ G Narayanamurthy vs Smt Munirathnamma @ G Rathnamma on 24 January, 2011
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
EN THE HEGH COURT oE_K3R?uATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATE9 THIS "THE 24?" DAY OF EANUARY 201-1»,
BEFORE
THE HOEWBLE MRJUSTICE RAVI M.Afl_f'£'\§.Af.H' H.
MISCELLANEOUS FERST APPEAi_»NO.429i-'0 cjE~201'0{L:PC) "
BETWEEN:
1.Shri G;VNa-rayane. --
@ "<3';'.'--.EaxI*;~;)ya ham gt":-"lthy, S./0 {ate 'S.hr:_ Gop'a.{é'a'-a_h,-- I Aged ab'0ut Y5; .\/ea. r's.,_ ' R/at._N0E.1883,'*6'",_ Crgss, 20"' Mam-, 3.P_.Naga~:;
; '2"'§Phase,.AV '" ' ._':""«:.Ba__nga_|0re 4 'E-69078. ' Tshfi'Afiiwérudrashekar _ r'£.é1r.a'yana @ Narayana Murthy, Agec§aj_b.<3ut 51 years, R/at ~N--O.134 (New No.37) Reservoir Street, Ba-iwgalore - 560 004. ...APPELLANTS " Sri Ashok B.PatiI, Advocate)
1. Smtmunérathnamma @ Gfiathnamma W/o Shri N.G0pa|akrishraa Aged about 67 years, R/At N0.1382, 15"' Cross, 14" Main, Kumaraswamy Layout, L» > 15' Stage, Baragafore -~ 5601178.,
2. Sakhamuri. Veni<a4ta'nar3aiah "
D/0 Shri Chaliaéah _' " E' ' Aged about.71 years, ' R/atNo._1e2,'3-r_dM:ain, V .
3ayama¥1aE§§:>{tenVs'iori,_ 4_ "
aangaiorax, V 3 . Sh'fi"G m a§§;.*'iSfi'na"---- S1}/oGopa%aViah*aa "
M'a__jos'*,_ ' _ Reservoir Street, ' 'V g':-3aasavana.AG'u'di. ' " B3a.339fl_|ore 24 ' 'O04.
' TS'nfitYa§'hada _ avv',/:0*«.?uttt'a:»'wamy D/0 'Ggmaiaiah, M..a'j'or,«-"' R/at I\£0.655, 2"" Floor, 1'2" Cross, 15' Biock, ' Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangaiore ~--« 560 079. ,..RESPOE\3DENTS (83; Sri M.S.Purushathama Rae, Advocate far R1; Sri M.Arun Panappa, Advecate for R2,, =é7'§«r R3--Served) This MFA filed under oraeirxxi F5iuie."i{r.}VVVo'f}Ci5vC,V' against the order dated 11:02-2»3Ol0,-"'0zaaVSS't?L¢i' on Iii%3*i;:i\§_o.u:,En O.S.i\io.160/ZOO'? on the fiie of )<\3'1II---_Additioneai~.CE«ty--Ci~x;i'I"& Sessions Judge, Bangaioz'e,' a_liowing_ iA.E\ic-..'1" u_;'order's. 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for This MFA comivngon fo'r"adfnis's.i_on thiisdayyj, the court delivered the fo|iowing_:}* _ * v Aggiieveti:-is-isiyj 11.02.2010 passed on XVIIE Additionai City Civil Judge,' injunction restraining the defer-..ija;i4ts:Vf_ro:§ aiiienating the suit scheduie property d.i_sposa'i«of..it'ne suit, the defendants 1 and 4 have ' .-hfii-ed present appeai.
':The parties wouid be referred to as per their rani'«;_i_ri~ the trial Court.
3. The piaintiff fiied a suit seeking for a partition and separate possession ef 1/4"' share in the property iefi:
behind by her fetirier. Since the defendants were resenting {:};£\i'"'
-4...
to hostile attétnde in order to deprive her share and attempted to alienate the suit schedule property;.VV_:ti.4r5\i;i\io.I was filed under Order ><>o<:o< Ruie 1 and 2 of Procedure seekéng an order of9ternp'ora--ry~y'i'nju--ncti_0n'~.f"
restraining the defendants fVr.orrij'rai'ienaté~n§' schedule property téii the d'ilsp.pVsai of. they suit.' Ci.nV¢Vco3ntestV,t* the trial Court passed an imp_u"gn_ed._vorde'i»a_i:lowing I.A.i\lo.I by granténg an ordei*-_..Eif_Atempo'ra"ry».i:'njonction restraénéng the defendants. frorn,a--:vien:ati'r--:gathfe"isuit1,sE:heduie property tiil the d_¥s1posal..__o"f.ytteefsigit. "Hence the present appeal by the
4. $riV.Aé;hoi'«: B.Pat%|, the learned Counsel ._app.ea'rin§jr~for thvewappeilants contends that the impugned V o~rder.T'fts~.v"E3aid_§2n iaw and is Stable to be set aside. He Aco__nt€.;'iCiSVlA.i3that the plaintiff has failed to make out any AA prin'ia...i°'a<:ée case and hence, no injunction couid have been «' -..V''g.ra5nted in her favour. He contends that the reference by the trial Court that the plaintiff being a daughter is entitfed to a share under the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, /'""
Q; *"""
2005 is erroneous and liabie to be set of the plea raised by the plaintiffmherseif.ithat.::t~he"':proVpe_r4t';rL- is a self acquired property, she no'tie:ntitled.iio 'a"n:y..s'ii=;:are in the suit schedule propertig/;«..._VHe flu-rtlher co'n'tejn.dsVVth3atVthe' suit having been filed beyond:"'the--.period vvvigrears from the time of cause is barred by iimitation. He..thereforei:.sub.hnit»s' of the piaint itself facie case on these the case, no temporary irijunctiorz lshoui.d':'havie>"been granted.
5.vV'i"--«.Vii"l"'vhe':_leariie'd Counsel appearing for the r.e_S§«ponde,nt def'e«nid.s.i.',he impugned order. counsels.
it .. :',7'.;. V The trial Court while considering the plea for injunction was of the view that in terms of Hindu 'Succession Amendment Act, 2005, a prima facie case has been established by the plaintiff in pursuance of a right to claim a partition. The said finding is opposed by the
--:"9*fr ..5....
learned Counsei appearing for the appellant on the ground that the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, not appiicable to the piaintiff. He contends"*«t'ha:t:':
amendment act is not applicable so far as"tilw-e':5.ei'f~i.ac--quired., property is concerned and in View of,the'*--plai,u"t a'yVeir_me_nts itself, the piaintiff has faiied to niake ourt"v'a'.,«:C,a_se _T§in.'dhe:r; favour.
8. The con._tentici_Vn iearned Counsel appea'r'i'rig,,V'for "ap'p,e'li.g'n't'iixiithfregard to the applicability of th"e_i«iind'u Act, 2005 is an issue that is rdetiuiredi totie 'gone into at triai. The determination Of'3'«:an__,iViss,ue, yiz'ith....r.egard to whether the piaintiff couid be Amendment Act, 2305 couid only be i'.d'etermi'riied.'5'after proper evidence is led in so far as the sta'c.us«:_of the property and other matters are concerned.
n_;T'h.erefore, Yarn of the considered view that the determination of the appiicabiiity of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2085 is riot an issue that coiiid he considered aiorig with an appiication for injunction flied by prima facie case is justified. The reasorzinggfif'--ft_he§_5tri_ai_ Court are just and proper. I find no gr_o~u--n.ifI':'~i:if>"-ii:i*jteArfefe« with the same.
:11. For the aforesaid'Vvriéiasgnsg"ti§é":ap§§eai being devoid of merits is di'srI_i'i(sse-ii. . "
Prs?" ~