Karnataka High Court
Smt. Dhanamani vs Sri. P. Babu on 11 July, 2014
1
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH
M.F.A.NO.1438/2013(CPC)
BETWEEN
1. SMT.DHANAMANI
D/O ARMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGAPPA GARDEN
BHARATHI NAGAR
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
2. SMT.CHITAYAMMA
W/O LATE SRI ARMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGAPPA GARDEN
BHARATHI NAGAR
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
3. SMT.THAVAMANI
W/O CHINNA THAMBI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGAPPA GARDEN
BHARATHI NAGAR
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
4. SRI SAIT
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGAPPA GARDEN
BHARATHI NAGAR
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
2
BANGALORE-560 005
5. SMT.VALLIYAMMA
W/O MUTTU
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGAPPA GARDEN
BHARATHI NAGAR
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
6. SMT.SAGUNTHALA
W/O LATE KUTTIAPPAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGAPPA GARDEN
BHARATHI NAGAR
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
7. SMT.GAJALAKSHMI
W/O GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGAPPA GARDEN
BHARATHI NAGAR
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
8. SRI SHANMUGAM
S/O SUBBAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGAPPA GARDEN
BHARATHI NAGAR
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
9. SMT.ANBU
D/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGAPPA GARDEN
BHARATHI NAGAR
JEEVANAHALLI
COX TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005
3
10. SMT.YASHODHA
W/O MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGAPPA GARDEN
BHARATHI NAGAR
JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI P.BABU
S/O SRI PADMANABHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.671
PREM NIVAS, OM SHAKTI
TEMPLE ROAD, GRAPA GARDEN
ST.THOMAS TOWN POST
KAMMANAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 084
2. SMT.R.SHILPA
W/O JAYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.71, 3RD CROSS
HUTCHENS ROAD
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST
BANGALORE-560 084
3. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA SLUM BOARD
SHESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE-560 021 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
C/R1 & R2)
MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 4.1.2013 PASSED ON I.A. IN
O.S.NO.5384/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL
4
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the defendants. There is an order of status quo being passed by the trial Court on the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, the order of status quo was sought to be modified by the defendants by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC seeking to carry out small constructions by way of repair.
2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the property belongs to them and without right whatsoever, the appellants are trying to interfere with the property on the guise that the property is notified by the Slum Board.
3. Unless the acquisition notification is issued and the property is taken by the Slum Board and 5 allotted under the due process of law, the appellants may not be having any semblance of right. The application filed by the defendants for modifying the order for making improvements on the property would definitely come in the way of rightful ownership of the land owners. Hence, the appellants are not entitled for such a relief.
4. As such, this appeal is disposed of without any further orders being passed on the application filed by the appellants herein. However, the trial Court is directed dispose of the matter expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE YN.