Karnataka High Court
Sanngouda A/F. Veerbhadaragouda ... vs Puttavva W/O. Basavaneppa Shidenur on 20 April, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B. Adi
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2O DAY OF APRIL, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI
MFA. 21509/20 12(CPC)
BETWEEti:
SANNGOUDA A/F VEERABHDARAGOUDA
HANAGODI, AGE:46 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE & SERVICE,
R/O. SUNKAL NIDARI, TQ:RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581 15.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.PU17AWA W/O. BASAVANEPPA SHIDENUR,
AGE:60 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIKKAKURATfl, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581 15.
2. SMT.SHANKARAWA, W/O. PUTANGOUDA
POUCEGOUDAR, AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
RJO. SUNKAL BIDARI, TQ:RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581 15.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR Ri)
.0).
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDERS ON I.ANO.2 DATED 22/03/2012
PASSED IN PA NO.5/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1
AND 2 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC.
THE APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT This appeal is by the appellant against the order dated 22.3.2012 passed on I.A.2 In R.A.5/2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court Judge, at Ranebennur.
2. The appellant was defendant in O.S.13/95. Respondent-Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, declaring the Adoption Deed and Gift Deed as null and void and to declare her half share in the suit schedule properties by partition and separate possession. The said suit is partly th 116 decreed, holding that the plaintiff is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties.
3. As against the said judgment and decree the defendant filed appeal in R.A.5/2008 questioning the decree :3: granting 1/6" share to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed a separate appeal in R.A.11/2008 against the order dated 27.7.04 restraining the plaintiffs from Interfering with the possession of the defendant. Both the appeals are now pending on the file of the Fast Track Court, Ranebennur.
4. In R.A.5/2008, the defendant filed application I.A.2 for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said application has been partly
-- ltn, allowed, but &ppointing a Court Commissioner to harvest the standing maize and cotton crops raised in the suit lands and to deposit the proceeds in the court.
5. It Is against the said order, the defendant is before this court.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellate Court by order dated 25.1.2012 directed both the parties to maintain status quo. It is also not in dispute, before the thai Court In O.S.13/95, the defendant had flied I.A.VIII under Order 39 :4: Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the trial Court had granted temporary injunction on 27.7.2004 restraining the plaintiff and her followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the defendant, pending disposal of the suit. The said interim order was confirmed by dismissing the appeal in Mlsc.Appeal.8/2004 filed by the plaintiff.
7. In view of the injunction order operating against the plaintiff before the trial Court and also status quo order having been passed by the appellate Court, prima facie this shows that the defendant is in possession and cultivation of the land In question. Even the appellate Court, in the order th 116 impugned has observed that the plaintiff has got share as she is joint owner, and appointed the Court Commissioner for harvesting the standIng crops. The records disclose, prima facie the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property and he had the benefit of injunction order throughout and that has been protected by the Appellate Court. Hence, there was no reason for the Appellate Court pt r --( i r f h :tarding crops. The impugred order passed o tnt fast r it t /28 t' bn ct or anc tndirertly 'r a.Voiints to interfering w!th rhe possess'on ot h efe. ar Jr escir ns'cc t[ np s ee 8 Accordnglv, the appeal 's allowed Order dated 22 2 fo5/ 38 as I sc asc Appellate Court jc directed to dispose of the appeals J /UU ' I u'a 11 S 5$ than two months from the date of reopening & the (.nuts fret c c As hr nt rest 0' the rnirtff is nc w, re 'nt,t -cl o c. ni 'es fits ' •( flj ..
-I