Karnataka High Court
Sri. Srinivasa Rao vs Smt. Puttamma on 7 March, 2024
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.6593/2022 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI SRINIVASA RAO,
S/O LATE MOHAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.530,
8TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040.
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
SRI. K.B. RAMESH,
S/O PARIYANA BORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35/36, 13TH CROSS,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560079.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SANJAY G., 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.
2
3. SMT. PUSHPALATHA,
W/O SRI JANARDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
4. SRI AKSHIT,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
5. SMT. RAJESHWARI,
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
6. SRI ANUJ KUMAR R.,
S/O M.H. RAMAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
7. R. ASHA,
D/O M.H.RAMAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 7 ARE
RESIDING AT PATTANAGERE VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
8. SRI M.S. PRASAD,
MAJOR IN AGE,
NO.305, A, ANAND ANNEX,
J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.
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.
3
12. SMT. M. PADMA,
D/O LATE M. MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
13. SRI RAVI,
S/O LATE M.MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.9 TO 13 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.21/2,
NEHARU NAGAR,
GIRLS SCHOOL STREET,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560020.
14. SRI DAYANANDA,
S/O SRI SANKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9/2,
MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHANANJAY V. JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7;
SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
SRI AMSHITH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R9 TO R14)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE
CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2022 PASSED ON IA
NO.1 IN O.S.NO.3494/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
(CCH-43), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE
1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS M.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 21.02.2024, THIS DAY THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.3494/2022, on the file of XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff had filed a suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, or anybody claiming under them from any manner in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff is the full and absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 3 acres of residentially converted land in old Sy.No.10, new Sy.No.68 of Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which is morefully described in the schedule. It is contended that originally the schedule property was granted to one Sri Sanjeevaiah under darkhast and the revenue records stood in the name of the grantee Sri Sanjeevaiah for the year 1969-70 to 1988-89. The said Sanjeevaiah applied for conversion from agricultural purpose to 5 residential purpose and paid conversion charges. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 03.12.1992, converted the suit schedule property for non-agricultural residential purpose. He was not able to form the layout and he had sold the said schedule property vide sale deed dated 09.06.1992, registered on 23.07.1992 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a senior citizen and not in a situation to take care of the suit schedule property. As such the plaintiff executed the general power of attorney dated 09.07.2007 in favour of the present attorney holder in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiff also produced the sale deed, encumbrance certificate from 01.04.1992 to 31.03.2004. The general power of attorney was produced and MR was also changed in favour of the plaintiff in MR No.9/1992-93.
3. The said Sanjeevaiah passed away in the year 2004 and his legal heirs approached the Assistant Commissioner in K.Sc.St.No.36/2004-05 to restore the land in their favour and the same was restored vide order dated 17.03.2006 by the Assistant Commissioner. The same was questioned before the Special Deputy Commissioner and the same was set aside. In the meanwhile, the documents are changed based on the 6 restoration of the property in favour of the legal representatives of Sanjeevaiah. The plaintiff approached the revenue authorities to transfer the revenue records in his name and they gave an endorsement on 25.04.2022 that the suit schedule property was already converted for residential purpose and the revenue records cannot be transferred. Hence, the plaintiff approached BBMP to issue khatha and the BBMP issued the khatha and collected cash. It is contended that since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. When things stood thus, the defendants without there being any semblance of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, taking advantage of the plaintiff is at a distance place, started making illegal attempt of encroaching with the help of JCB on the suit schedule property on 25.05.2022. The defendants having the support of other elements, started unnecessarily interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and making attempt to trespass on the suit schedule property, again on 26.05.2022. The photographs and compact disk are produced as document Nos.23 and 24. The plaintiff having no other option, reported the matter to the jurisdictional police and insptie of the complaint, the police 7 officials refused to register the complaint on the ground that the matter is civil in nature. The defendants are having money and muscle power and when their threat of interference was continued, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction and also sought temporary injunction by filing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement and adopted the written statement as objections to the I.A. It is their contention that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and not disclosed the material facts and by suppressing the material facts, seeking the discretionary relief. It is contended that the plaintiff after purchasing the property had executed a general power of attorney dated 20.07.1999 in favour of REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.) in respect of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, based on the general power of attorney, the REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.), has formed a layout and sold the sites in favour of various purchasers on various dates in the year 2001 and subsequent years. Accordingly, the subsequent purchasers have put up constructions and they are residing in the said sites. It is 8 further contended that after lapse of 12 years, the plaintiff's vendors i.e., Sadashivaiah, Sanjeevaiah, Ramakrishnaiah and wife of deceased Venkatachalaiah by name Puttamma have filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub division, under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and the said case was registered in K.SC.ST.No.36/2004-05, wherein the plaintiff was arrayed as respondent. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 17.03.2006 and the land was restored to the plaintiff and the sale deed of the plaintiff is declared as null and void, since the sale deed was in contravention of the PTCL Act. It is contended that the vendors of the plaintiff have not made the subsequent purchasers in the said case and obtained the orders behind back of the purchasers. Thereafter, the plaintiff aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-division, preferred an appeal the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in Appeal No.4/2020. The said appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was set aside. It is contended that though order was passed long back by the Assistant Commissioner on 17.03.2006, the appeal was filed in 2020 after 14 years from the date of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. It is contended 9 that till this day, Srinivas Rao has never appeared personally in any of the proceedings either before the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or before this Court or in O.S.No.2878/2022 filed by defendant Nos.1 to 7 represented by defendant No.8 as GPA holder. There is a cloud whether Srinivas Rao has authorized K.B. Ramesh to prosecute the suit and on that count itself, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
5. It is also contended that the vendors of the plaintiff and their family members have also filed O.S.No.4806/2020 as against Puttaramaiah and others for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. It is contended that subsequently, in view of non-granting of interim order, the plaintiff therein filed a memo on 17.10.2020 and withdrew the said suit as not pressed. Accordingly, the said suit was dismissed. In the said suit, Puttamma and others are represented by their GPA holder Sri Narayana. Likewise, Narayana had filed a suit in O.S.No.4745/2022 against Puttamma and others for the relief of specific performance of contract based on the created and collusive alleged agreement of sale dated 14.09.2020 and the said suit is also pending. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1 to 8 are arrayed as defendants. It is 10 contended that during the pendency of O.S.No.4806/2020, the plaintiffs herein have filed one more suit in O.S.No.26199/2020 and the said suit is also for permanent injunction and the same is also pending consideration. Puttaramaiah and others have also filed a suit in O.S.No.25402/2020 for the relief of permanent injunction and the said suit is pending consideration. It is contended that the plaintiff is having knowledge of the above said suits and proceedings. Inspite of the same, the plaintiff has suppressed the said facts and filed the present suit and sought for the relief of temporary injunction. The plaintiff has produced the photographs pertaining to the property in possession of defendant Nos.1 to 7 and claiming his alleged right in respect of the non-existing schedule property. On that ground alone, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to the dismissed.
6. It is contended that the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint including boundaries, measurement are altogether different from the boundaries mentioned in O.S.No.5706/2010, since the vendors of the plaintiff have filed a suit in O.S.No.5706/2010 and given different boundary description. It is also contended that after filing of the suit, this Court was pleased to issue emergent notice and the same was 11 challenged in W.P.No.11241/2022 and the Court was pleased to grant status quo. After coming to know about the order passed in the writ petition, the defendant has verified the records and there is no any reference regarding the Village name, Hobli name or Taluk name. The defendant No.1 filed an application on 17.06.2022 before the BBMP seeking information to furnish the khatha certificate in respect of the property and on verification, the BBMP authorities have issued an endorsement on 27.06.2022 stating that there is no katha certificate in respect of katha No.3555/10/68 in respect of 3 acres of land and the tax paid receipt produced by the plaintiff is pertaining to Sri Vikas Jain property and there is no tax paid receipt issued by the BBMP authorities in respect of Sy.No.68, in the name of Srinivas Rao. It is contended that the tax paid receipt produced by the plaintiff is created and the letter dated 25.04.2022, produced by the plaintiff is also created one, since on 22.06.2022 the Special Tahsildar has issued an endorsement stating that the same is not issued by the then Special Tahsildar and further intimated that the then Special Tahsildar was transferred to some other place and from the office of the Tahsildar, no such endorsement was issued. It is contended that the documents which have 12 been placed before the Court are created for the purpose of the case.
7. It is also the contention that defendant Nos.1 to 7 are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the converted land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situated at Pattanagere village and the suit schedule property is morefully described in the written statement. The defendant No.1 is the wife of late Sri Muniyappa, defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 are the sons and daughters of the deceased Muniyappa, defendant Nos.6 and 7 are the grandchildren on Muniyappa and defendant No.3 is the daughter in law of Muniyappa. Muniyappa died in the year 2010 leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 7 to succeed to his estate including the written statement schedule property. During the lifetime of Muniyappa, he had acquired the written statement schedule property by way of grant made by the Tahsildar for an upset price of Rs.100/- per acre, vide order No.LND/CR/138/1957-58, dated 28.01.1958. Subsequently, grant certificate was issued in favour of Muniyappa. Thereafter, Muniyappa has also deposited necessary fee and subsequently the revenue records were transferred in the name of Muniyappa in the year 1974-75 in MR No.157/1974-75. It is contended that 13 ever since from the date of the grant, husband of defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property. Subsequently, after the demise of Muniyappa, revenue records in respect of the written statement schedule property is transferred in the name of defendant No.1 as per MR No.H10/2011-12. During the year 1995-96, the Special Deputy Commissioner was pleased to initiate suo-moto proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.8, 10 and 11 of Pattanagere Village. After holding enquiry into the matter, the entries made in the name of Muniyappa and others, were ordered to be cancelled and resumed the land to the Government, vide order dated 30.10.1998. Being aggrieved by the said order, Muniyappa had filed W.P.No.27784/2009. After hearing, the High Court quashed the order dated 30.10.1998 in respect of land of Muniyappa and the matter was remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with law. In accordance with law. Subsequently, after enquiry, the Special Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 25.11.2020 was pleased to drop the proceedings and ordered to restore the name of Muniyappa and others in the revenue records.
14
8. It is contended that during the lifetime of Muniyappa, he had filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Taluk, for conversion of the schedule property from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose. Subsequently, after collecting the charges, written statement schedule property was converted from agricultural to non- agricultural purpose vide order No.ALN(S) SR/18/1995-96 dated 27.12.1995. At the time of conversion, the Taluk Surveyor of Bengaluru South Taluk, conducted a survey and identified the land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.10 and the same is marked as Block No.1 and prepared a sketch. On perusal of the sketch produced by the Taluk Surveyor, it clearly indicates that the land granted in favour of Muniyappa is clearly identified. It is also contended that defendant Nos.1 to 7 have authorized their GPA holder/defendant No.8, to invest funds and develop the layout by giving site numbers in the written statement schedule property by providing all civil amenities. Subsequently, the defendant has formed a residential layout and also put up a temporary watchmen shed and obtained electricity connection from BESCOM and put a blue sheet compound wall in and around the written statement schedule property and also 15 installed CCTV cameras. Accordingly, Puttamma and her family members are in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property. It is contended that when such being the case, few persons i.e., the plaintiff, vendors of the plaintiff and others came near the written statement schedule property and tried to illegally interfere with the possession and hence, filed O.S.No.2878/2022 for the relief of permanent injunction against the said Sanjeevaiah and others. Subsequently, after hearing, the Court vide order dated 21.04.2022, was pleased to grant an ad-interim order of exparte temporary injunction. Subsequent to the filing of O.S.No.2878/2022, the plaintiff, their henchmen and others with the influence of politicians and taking law into their hands, have come near the written statement schedule property on 20.05.2022 and hence went to lodge the complaint with the police and the police have registered the crime against the plaintiff and others and hence they have violated the interim order. It is contended that they have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property. The vendors of the plaintiff and their family members have filed a suit in O.S.No.3124/2022 as against defendant Nos.1 to 8. In 16 the said suit, the defendant has filed the written statement and objections and the court was pleased to dismiss I.A.No.2. In the said suit, the vendors of the plaintiff have contended that they are in possession of the plaint schedule property. In the instant suit, the plaintiff contended that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. The fact remains that the plaintiff or the vendors of the plaintiff are not in possession of the suit schedule property since the plaintiff has formed a layout and sold sites through his GPA holder. It is also contended that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and denied all other averments made in the plaint.
9. The Trial Court having taken note of the contentions of the plaintiff and the defendants, formulated the points as to whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction as prayed, whether the plaintiff proves that the balance of convenience lies in his favour and whether the plaintiff proves that irreparable loss and injury will be caused to him if temporary injunction is not granted. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, answered all the points in the negative and dismissed the I.A. 17
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application. It is contended that the suit schedule property was originally granted in favour of Sanjeevaiah in the year 1950 and old survey number is 10/4 and new survey number is 68. The plaintiff had purchased the property in the year 1992. After some time, original owners have filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner ordered for resumption of property and the Deputy Commissioner reversed the said order. It is the contention that the claim made by the defendants is in favour of Muniyappa S/o Balappa and claims the sale agreement and GPA and there was no any conversion and no grant document is produced before the Court. The suit for declaration was filed and the same was dismissed. The writ petition is also filed for phodi. The Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application and not considered the factual aspects. The learned counsel would submit that Sanjeevaiah is not a party in O.S.No.26199/2020 and the Court has to take note of that there are no details in the sale deed about the property of the particular survey number.
18
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the suit is for the relief of injunction and exparte injunction was not granted and hence filed the writ petition. The Trial Court has taken note of the power of attorney was executed by the said Sanjeevaiah. The learned counsel contend that the power of attorney holder sold the property by forming the layout. There is a cloud over the title and the reasons given by the Trial Court is very clear and when there is cloud over the title, they cannot maintain a suit for permanent injunction.
12. In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that an application is filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, since the order passed by this Court is violated and action has to be taken against the respondents. Inspite of injunction was granted, sold the properties and it requires interference of this Court and appropriately, the respondents have to be dealt with.
13. The learned counsel for the respondents has produced the documents along with the memo i.e., absolute sale 19 deed dated 19.10.2022 executed by the plaintiff along with Smt. M.S.Divya , Managing Director of M/s. Trinco Infra Pvt. Ltd., in favour of Sri Cheluvaraj and consequent upon that, khatha has been issued by the BBMP and tax paid receipts and memorandum of understanding dated 30.10.2021 entered into between one Prashanth Chandra and M/S. Trinco Infra Pvt. Ltd. The learned counsel also filed some more documents i.e., copy of the plaint in O.S.No.5444/2020 and order sheet, copy of W.P.No.17586/2021 and order sheet, copy of the plaint in O.S.No.515/2022 and order sheet, memo of withdrawal of the said suit, copy of the agreement to sell dated 14.07.2011 executed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in favour of one Sri Prabhuraj D. Ambli, copy of agreement to sell dated 22.06.2015 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 7 in favour of Sri Ramesh, copy of agreement to sell dated 25.02.2022 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 7 in favour of defendant No.8, copy of GPA dated 19.03.2022 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 7 in favour of defendant No.8, copy of the rectification deed dated 10.05.2022, encumbrance certificates, copy of the deposits and connection issued by the BESCOM, copy of the order dated 17.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.11241/2022. The respondents have also 20 produced the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.2878/2022, copy of the endorsements dated 27.06.2022 and 22.06.2022, tax paid receipts dated 17.09.2021 and copy of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.5706/2010.
14. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KANGARO INDUSTRIES (R) AND OTHERS v. JAININDER JAIN AND ANOTHER reported in 2022 Live Law (S) 437 and contended that it is not open to the Court in contempt jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings being CS (OS)No.156/2004 and more so, when the initial interim relief is limited to the registered trademark.
15. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC v. FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in (2022) 1 SCC 209 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.56, wherein discussed with regard to Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and 2A. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.57 and 58, i.e., reading of Order 39 Rules 2(3) and 2(4) as it originally stood and 21 consequences. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 665, extracted paragraph No.38 and in paragraph No.61 discussed with regard to exercising power under Order 39 Rule 2A is punitive in nature and akin to the power to punish for civil contempt.
16. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that this Court cannot invoke Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC and sale made is not in respect of the suit schedule property and the same is in respect of written statement schedule property.
17. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is the claim of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was originally granted in favour of Sanjeevaiah and in turn he sold the same in the year 1992. The proceedings for resumption of the property was initiated by the legal representatives of Sanjeevaiah. It is not in dispute that the property was resumed and thereafter the same was set aside by the Special Deputy Commissioner. It is important to note that specific claim of the defendants is that the property was purchased by the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 09.06.1992 and thereafter he has executed a registered general 22 power of attorney on 20.07.1999 in favour of REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.) and they formed the layout and sold the sites in favour of various purchasers in the year 2001 and subsequent years. There is no dispute with regard to the initiation of the proceedings. The appellant has produced some of the documents, even after granting of temporary injunction, sale deeds are executed and those documents are placed before the Court. It is important to note that the defendants also filed an application before the BBMP to furnish the khatha certificate in respect of the property bearing No.3555/10/68 and after verification, the BBMP authorities have issued an endorsement on 27.06.2022 stating that there is no such khatha certificate. It is important to note that other suits have been filed before the Court by the plaintiffs as well as the vendors of the plaintiff and no relief has been granted. It is important to note that the defendants have also filed a suit and injunction has been granted in their favour. It is also important to note that the defendants claim the property through one Muniyappa and contend that he is the original grantee and dispute is in respect of old Sy.No.10 and new Sy.No.68. The Tahsildar also issued an endorsement with regard to the letter 23 dated 25.04.2022, stating that they have not issued the documents, which have been produced before the Trial Court.
18. Having perused the documents available on record, it is clear that the power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favour of REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.) and the said power of attorney is a registered power of attorney to deal with the property. Based on the power of attorney, REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.,) sold the sites formed in Sy.No.68 measuring 3 acres. This fact is taken note of by the Trial Court while passing the order and comes to the conclusion that based on the power of attorney, sites are formed and sold the sites. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property though it is purchased vide sale deed dated 09.06.1992 from Sanjeevaiah and his sons. The Trial Court also taken note of the suits filed by the legal heirs of the vendors of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.3124/2022 and no such relief is granted. The defendants have filed the documents of sale deed, which clearly reveals that the purchasers have constructed the residential building in their sites.
24
19. The learned counsel for the appellant contend that the original grantee father's name is different. It is important to note that the vendor of the plaintiff and their family members have filed a suit in O.S.No.4806/2020 and subsequently the same was withdrawn and also filed one more suit and in none of the cases they have got any relief. When the dispute is with regard to the very same property claimed by the plaintiff and the defendant and claimed through different grantees and when there is a cloud over the title of the property, the very suit for bare injunction and interalia, relief of temporary injunction, cannot be considered. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts with regard to the earlier suit filed by him and also filed by their vendors. There is a dispute with regard to the revenue document of khatha certificates and endorsements are also issued that no such khathas are in existence and the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court while passing the order of rejection of I.A. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application, when there is a cloud over the title.
25
20. The other contention of the appellant is that the interim order granted by this Court is violated and produced some documents. The claim is made by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property through Sanjeevaiah and the said property was sold by Sanjeevaiah in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants also contend that the very plaintiff had executed the power of attorney. The defendants claim their right in respect of the written statement schedule property and they are claiming through other grantee. When such dispute is there, whether the sale is made in respect of the property of the plaintiff or in respect of the written statement schedule property, the same requires enquiry. Hence, this Court cannot invoke Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC when there is a dispute with regard to the property and when there is a cloud over the title and the suit is also for the relief of bare injunction. Hence, I do not find any ground to invoke Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC and no grounds are made out to set aside the order of Trial Court in dismissing the I.A. filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
21. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
26
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD