Karnataka High Court
Sri H D Puttaswamy S/O Late Dasappa ... vs Sri Kempe Gowda S/O Late Ninge Gowda on 26 March, 2013
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
R.S.A.No.1613/2010 A/W
Misc.Cvl.No.9399/2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
R.S.A.No.1613/2010 A/W
MISC.CVL.NO.9399/2010
BETWEEN:
SRI H D PUTTASWAMY
S/O LATE DASAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
HOUSE NO 5, NEW NO 346-312
MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPAL, 2ND STAGE
HEBBAL GRAMA (KATTE HOSUR)
MYSORE-570 001 ... APPELLANT
(COMMON)
(BY SRI N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KEMPE GOWDA
S/O LATE NINGE GOWDA
79 YEARS
2. SRI MAHADEVA
S/O KEMPE GOWDA
AGED 54 YEARS
3. SRI NARAYANA
S/O KEMPE GOWDA
AGED 44 YEARS
ALL THE DEFENDANTS ARE
RESIDING AT MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPAL
HEBBAL GRAMA
MYSORE CITY-571 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
(BY SRI R.S.RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3;
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
R.S.A.No.1613/2010 A/W
Misc.Cvl.No.9399/2010
-2-
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.4.2010 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.1199/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:19.7.2005 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.823/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. I CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN) MYSORE.
MISC.CVL.9399/2010 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE
1 & 2 OF CPC PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS
FROM INTERFERING WITH THE POSSESSION OF THE
APPELLANT OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY PENDING
DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS RSA A/W MISC. CVL. APPLICATION COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
This appeal is by plaintiff No.1. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgments of the two Courts below.
The plaintiffs' suit for injunction was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs did not approach the Court with clean hands. The said judgment is affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.
Concurrent findings by both the Courts.
R.S.A.No.1613/2010 A/W Misc.Cvl.No.9399/2010 -3-
2. It is relevant to refer to para 20 of the trial Court judgment which reads as follows:
"20. It is an established principle of law that a person who seeks equity must do equity. But here in this case as rightly argued by Sri B.D.V.G., the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands. On the other hand they have suppressed the encroachment. It is apparent on the face of the record that the 1st plaintiff has encroached the property belongs to the defendants and also the 80 feet road. Therefore under these circumstances even though the 1st plaintiff has established that he is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 30 x 30 feet, if the court grants the decree of Permanent injunction then definitely he will take undue advantage of it and he will also further encroach the property of others. The courts are not there to help these type of persons. Therefore the discretionary relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted in favour of wrong doers like 1st R.S.A.No.1613/2010 A/W Misc.Cvl.No.9399/2010 -4- plaintiff. Hence I hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of Permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 and 3 in the negative."
(underlining supplied)
3. In my opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. No ground to admit the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, Misc.Cvl.No.9399/2010 filed for temporary injunction also stands dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.