Karnataka High Court
Sri Srinivasa Rao vs Smt Puttamma on 17 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.11241 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SRINIVASA RAO
S/O LATE MOHAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.530,
8TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040.
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SRI. K.B. RAMESH,
S/O PERIYANA BORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35/36, 13TH CROSS,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU -560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARVIND PATIL B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
2. SRI. JANARDHAN M
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. SMT. PUSHPALATHA
W/O SRI. JANARDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2
4. SRI. AKSHIT
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
5. SMT. RAJESHWARI
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
6. SRI. ANJU KUMAR R
S/O M.H. RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
7. R. ASHA
D/O M.H. RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
NO.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT
PATTANAGERE VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560079.
8. SRI. M.S. PRASAD
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
MAJOR IN AGE
NO.305, A, ANAND ANNEX,
J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU -560 078.
9. SRI. M. PUTTARAMAIAH
S/O LATE M. MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
10. SRI. M. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE M. MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
11. SRI. M. MOHAN
S/O LATE M. MANCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
12. SMT. M. PADMA
D/O LATE M. MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3
13. SRI. RAVI
S/O LATE M. MANCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
DEFENDANT NO.9 TO 13 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.21/2,
NEHARU NAGAR,
GIRLS SCHOOL STREET,
GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU -560 020.
14. SRI. DAYANANDA
S/O SRI. SANKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9/2, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 8;
SRI. AMSHITH HEGDE H.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.9 TO 14)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
BEFORE THE LEARNED XLII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH 43) IN O.S.NO.3494/2022 AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 01.06.2022 IN O.S.NO.3494/2022 ON IA NO.1
(ANNEXURE-V) AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS NOT TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE LAND BY
CONSTRUCTING ANY COMPOUND WALL OR ANY KIND OF
CONSTRUCTIONS OR DEVELOPMENTS ON THE SCHEDULED
LAND UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.3494/2022 on the file of the XLII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 01.06.2022 passed therein, by which an ex-parte order of interim injunction was refused by the Trial Court.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. The suit in O.S.No.3494/2022 was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of the property bearing Old Sy.No.10, New Sy.No.68, measuring 3 acres, situate at Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, lying adjacent to Panchasheela Polytechnic College, bounded on East by property of Kenchaiah, West by property of K.T. Srinivas and Government halla, North by properties of S. Ramakrishnaiah and C.L. Muniyappa and South by property of Ramachandrappa. The plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid property was granted to one Sri. Sanjeevaiah, S/o Singri and that the revenue records stood in his name from the year 1969-70 until it was 5 converted for non-agricultural purposes on 03.12.1992. It was claimed that the plaintiff purchased the aforesaid property from Sri. Sanjeevaiah on 23.07.1992. Consequently, the revenue records stood transferred to the name of the plaintiff vide M.R.No.9/1992-93. The plaintiff claimed that proceedings were initiated under the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and the land was resumed to the name of the legal heirs of Sri. Sanjeevaiah. This was later challenged in Appeal No.4/2020 before the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal on 21.12.2021. The plaintiff thereafter, approached the revenue authorities for restoration of his name in the revenue records and also approached the BBMP authorities to pay the property tax. The plaintiff claims that he was in possession of the suit property. He claimed that the defendants being instigated by the legal heirs of Sri. Sanjeevaiah, started interfering with his possession, which compelled him to file the instant suit for injunction.
6
4. The plaintiff sought for grant of an ex-parte order of interim injunction in respect of the aforesaid property. The Trial Court without recording any reasons, merely issued notice to the defendants. The plaintiff is therefore, before this Court challenging the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to grant ex-parte order of injunction.
5. This Court in terms of the order dated 08.06.2022 directed the parties to maintain status-quo regarding the nature of the aforesaid property. After service of notice, the defendants have entered appearance and contend that the vendor of the plaintiff himself did not have any title to the suit and as a matter of fact, the legal heirs of the vendor of the plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendants and their family members, where an interim injunction sought for was refused. They further contended that the defendants had also filed a suit in O.S.No.2878/2022, where the Court had granted an ex- parte order of injunction against the plaintiff and others in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.10 (as per M.R. 7 Sy.No.10/*/-P1), measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situate at Pattanagere village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, bounded East by private property, West by Ganadakallu Hole, North by Machaiah property and South by Ganadakallu Hole. They submitted that the plaintiff without disclosing these facts has filed the present suit. They also brought to the notice of the Court a suit filed in O.S.No.5706/2010 by the legal heirs of the vendor of the plaintiff in respect of 2 acres 12.5 guntas in Sy.No.68, Old Sy.No.10 and contend that the decree was only in respect of 2 acres 12.5 guntas, while in the present case, the plaintiffs are claiming much more.
6. I have perused the documents placed before the Court.
7. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not disclose any application of mind before refusing to grant ex-parte order of injunction. It was incumbent upon the Trial Court to record the reasons either while granting or refusing to grant an ex-parte order of 8 injunction as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan and others [ILR 2001 KAR 1].
8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside only on this short ground.
9. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The status-quo of the property of the plaintiff lying within the boundaries mentioned in the suit shall be maintained till the disposal of the application for interim injunction before the Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose off the application within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this order of status-quo of the property of the plaintiff is in respect of the property lying within the boundaries mentioned in the suit and not in respect of any other property.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR