Karnataka High Court
Sri. M. Subramanya vs R Rakesh on 20 March, 2018
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
MFA No.7973/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7973/2017 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI M.SUBRAMANYA
S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNINANJAPPA
@ ANGADI MUNINANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT JAKKUR VILLAGE
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SURESH S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. R.RAKESH
S/O J.RANGANATHA NAICKER
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT H.NO.66/1, ASHWATHANAGAR
SANJAY NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 094
2. SMT NAGRATHNAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKA MUNINANJAPPA
@ ANGADI MUNINANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
3. SMT MUNILAKSHMAMMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKA MUNINANJAPPA
@ ANGADI MUNINANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2
MFA No.7973/2017
4. SMT RAJAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKA MUNINANJAPPA
@ ANGADI MUNINANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.(2), (3) & (4) ARE
R/AT JAKKUR VILLAGE
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
5. N.LINGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
PRESIDENT
6. H.KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
PRESIDENT
(BOTH R(5) AND R(6) ARE REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL OFFICER
KARNATAKA STATE KHADI
& VILLAGE INDUSTRIES WORKER'S HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
(HBCS LTD), NO.10, MILLERS TANK
BUND ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052)
7. V.R.ANJANAPPA
S/O LATE V.RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT KOLATHUR VILLAGE
YELADUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAURA
TALUK, KOLAR DIST-563 121
8. SMT B.H.PRABHAVATHAMA
W/O A.PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT KOLATHUR VILLAGE
YELADUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAURA
TALUK, KOLAR DIST-563 121
9. LAKSHMAN N
REP. BY SPECIAL OFFICER
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3
MFA No.7973/2017
KARNATAKA STATE KHADI
& VILLAGE INDUSTRIES WORKER'S HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
(HBCS), NO.10, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE-560 052) ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SHRI ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4;
SHRI H.S.VENKATESH MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-9;
NOTICE TO R-5 TO R-8 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
19.03.2018)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 PASSED ON I.A. NO.8
IN O.S.NO. 2940/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY(CCH-30),
DISMISSING I.A.NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal by defendant No.1 is directed against order dated 21.08.2017 passed on I.A.VIII in O.S.No.2940/2015 on the file of the XXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing his application for vacating stay.
4MFA No.7973/2017
3. Heard Shri Suresh S.Lokre, learned Counsel for the appellant; Shri K.S.Harish, learned Counsel for respondent No.1; Shri Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4; and Shri H.S.Venkatesh Murthy, learned Counsel for respondent No.9. Notice to respondents No.5 to 8 is dispensed with as prayed for by the appellant.
4. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
5. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is, he purchased suit schedule property from Karnataka State Kadhi Village Industries House Building Co-Operative Societies Ltd., Bangalore. Based on the sale deed, plaintiff instituted instant suit for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was resisted by the defendants. By an order dated 17.1.2017, temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court. Defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.VIII under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for vacating interim order. On adjudication, the said application has been dismissed. 5 MFA No.7973/2017
6. Shri Suresh S.Lokre, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though it is averred by the plaintiff that the sale deed is executed through a power agent of first defendant, the endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar shows that the alleged GPA dated 19.06.2001 was not registered. He submits that defendant No.1 is in possession of the property in his own independent right.
7. Shri Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that respondents No.2 to 4 are co-owners and supports plaintiff.
8. Shri H.S.Venkatesh Murthy, learned advocate for respondent No.9 namely, Special Officer, Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Worker's House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., submits that the sale of the suit schedule property is not in accordance with law. In substance, he also supports defendant No.1. 6 MFA No.7973/2017
9. All learned Counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issues have been framed in the suit.
10. Since the property rights are involved, in the opinion of this court, it would be appropriate to dispose of this appeal with a direction to the trial Judge to dispose of the suit within a time limit so that the parties will know their status.
11. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Judge to expedite trial and to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
12. During the pendency of trial, there shall be an order of status quo with regard to revenue entry as also possession of the suit schedule property.
13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 7 MFA No.7973/2017
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and it stands disposed of accordingly.
Appeal disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE Yn.