Karnataka High Court
Smt Indira Rajendran W/O Late Dr G ... vs Smt Lathamala on 27 June, 2012
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
-1-
M.F.A.No.5823 OF 2012 C/w
M.F.A. No.5449 OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5823 OF 2012 C/W
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5449 OF 2012
IN M.F.A. No.5823/2012
BETWEEN:
SMT. INDIRA RAJENDRAN
W/O LATE DR. G RAJENDRAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.45-A
BARNABY ROAD, KILPAUK
CHENNAI-600 010
AND ALSO R/AT NO.74, 7TH CROSS
CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, HALASUR
BANGALORE-560 008
REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI M VENKATASWAMY REDDY
S/O LATE MUNIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.522
SWAMY VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT
AMRUTHAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 092 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M VEERABHADRAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LATHAMALA
D/O LATE B C GURUPADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
-2-
M.F.A.No.5823 OF 2012 C/w
M.F.A. No.5449 OF 2012
R/AT NO.102, PARK SIDE APARTMENT
2ND CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
2. SRI S N KRISHNAIAH SETTY
S/O LATE S NARAYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
PROPRIETOR M/S. SRI BALAJI KRUPA ENTERPRISES
NO.456, 64TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010
3. DR. L. NARENDRA PRASAD
S/O LATE C.V.L. SHASTHRI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.29/A, 9TH MAIN
R M V EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 080 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THIMMEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI C M DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.5.2012 PASSED ON IA NO.4
IN O.S.NO.3176/2012 ON THE FILE OF XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND VACATION JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY, REJECTING IA NO.4 FILED U/ORDER 39
RULE 1 & 2 CPC FOR T.I.
IN M.F.A. No.5449/2012 :
BETWEEN:
SMT. INDIRA RAJENDRAN
W/O LATE DR. G RAJENDRAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.45-A
BARNABY ROAD, KILPAUK
CHENNAI-600 010
AND ALSO R/AT NO.74, 7TH CROSS
-3-
M.F.A.No.5823 OF 2012 C/w
M.F.A. No.5449 OF 2012
CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, HALASUR
BANGALORE-560 008
REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI M VENKATASWAMY REDDY
S/O LATE MUNIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.522
SWAMY VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT
AMRUTHAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 092 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M VEERABHADRAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LATHAMALA
D/O LATE B C GURUPADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.102, PARK SIDE APARTMENT
2ND CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
2. SRI S N KRISHNAIAH SETTY
S/O LATE S NARAYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
PROPRIETOR M/S SRI BALAJI KRUPA ENTERPRISES
NO.456, 64TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010
3. DR. L NARENDRA PRASAD
S/O LATE C V L SHASTHRI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.29/A, 9TH MAIN
R M V EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560 080 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THIMMEGOWDA FOR
SRI C M DESAI, ADVOCATES FOR C/R-1.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.5.2012 PASSED ON IA NO.3
-4-
M.F.A.No.5823 OF 2012 C/w
M.F.A. No.5449 OF 2012
IN O.S.NO.3176/2012 ON THE FILE OF XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & VACATION JUDGE, BANGALORE,
REJECTING IA NO.3 FILED U/ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 CPC FOR
T.I.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
These two appeals by the plaintiff are directed against an interlocutory order dtd. 11.5.2012 passed by the trial court in the suit in O.S. No.3176/2012.
2. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the impugned order. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected I.A. Nos. 3 & 4 filed by the appellant/plaintiff. I.A. No.3 was filed to restrain respondent No.1 (defendant No.1) from changing the nature of the plaint 'A' schedule property measuring 50'X41' ft. I.A. No.4 was filed for grant of temporary injunction against -5- M.F.A.No.5823 OF 2012 C/w M.F.A. No.5449 OF 2012 respondent No.1 from putting up any construction on the plaint 'B' schedule property.
3. The trial Court, on consideration of the matter, has rejected I.A. Nos. 3 & 4. Both the appellant and respondent No.1 claim to be the owners of the suit schedule properties by relying on their respective registered sale deeds. Admittedly, the property originally belonged to defendant No.3 by name Dr. L. Narendra Prasad. The appellant claims to have purchased the suit schedule property measuring 50'X41' ft. by a registered sale deed dtd. 22nd August 2006. Respondent No.1 claims title to the suit property measuring 30'X50' ft. by virtue of a registered sale deed dtd. 7th November 2002 which was executed by the power of attorney holder of the original owner, namely Dr. L. Narendra Prasad referred to above. Presently, respondent No.1 has put up -6- M.F.A.No.5823 OF 2012 C/w M.F.A. No.5449 OF 2012 construction consisting of ground floor and first floor on the plaint 'B' schedule property. In view of this, the appropriate order would be to direct respondent No.1 to return the site along with the construction made thereon, in the event, the trial Court records a finding that the construction made by her is on the site belonging to the appellant/plaintiff.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 will return the site along with the construction thereon to the appellant without claiming any equity, in the event of the appellant/plaintiff succeeding in the suit finally. Accordingly, I make the following order:
Respondent No.1 is permitted to complete the construction which is under progress. In the event, the trial Court records a finding that the construction made is on the site belonging to the -7- M.F.A.No.5823 OF 2012 C/w M.F.A. No.5449 OF 2012 appellant/plaintiff, respondent No.1 shall return the said site along with the construction thereon without pleading any equity.
The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms in modification of the order impugned herein. In view of disposal of the appeals, I.A. No.1/2012 filed in MFA No.5449/2012 and I.A. No.2/2012 filed in MFA No.5823/2012 for grant of temporary injunction do not survive for consideration; they stand disposed of accordingly.
Appeals disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE BNS