Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramanna vs Sri V Srinivasan on 15 March, 2010
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
I go' DATED THIS THE I5""" DAY OF MARCH 2010 BEFORE THE HOE\i'BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MAi;Ifg§_ATH»A./,::' T
WRIT PETITION NOAO61 or 2.'{.}")'.8:V(tj'."tV.1.:m:{.\.'«PC_')'VVV:"'.,_'.HVV:':v"A' BETWEEN:
Sri ~RaI".":.aTi:na 'fl; "
S/Q Mu rIiswam_a"ppa' Ag e"dA about _66,"yea»rs{'IA.. ' Sri KrivsTfI«nTa'ppeI'__ A $70 Bvramiay about 56 years.
A " :'Z~r_é "S§j'm'aVn"na ".5/0V"'3V'~'TaDP'a".
V'ATgedHa1bi3_I:It 27 years. $ri ifishnappa VsI_S/ovfxiarasimaiah Aged about 66 years.
Sri Rajanna S/0 Byrappa Aged about 36 years.
Sri Narayanapa IN THE HIGH COURT OFTK%\R_i\JATAKA AT BANGALORE S/o Patallappa Aged about 41 years.
Sri G.S.Nagesh S/o Shivanna Aged about 33 years.
Sri G.M.Kempanna S/o Muniswamapa, : ' Aged about 53 years.
Ali are residents of;
Gadenahaili Village, Chikkajala Hobli, __ Tavahunase Anc:he,'_ _« Bangalore North TaI'u!<.y.. 1 (By Sri' 'ervr aged mam , 'Aavo¢ate3}VVr AND:
1 .
Sri' \!,.Srinivasan 'TS:/o;>_..iate M.R.'Ve--n-kataraman, Agexiaboxrt 65 years.
A _ W/o_S'ri~r11_iv'asan, 'Age._d about 60 years.
.Vye_.Mr.Txiarayana Sethuraman S/o \!.Srinivasan Aged about 35 years.
Mr.Murafi Venkataraman S/o Vsrinévasan Aged about 33 years.
9%"
All are residents of Trala Electormech Systems Pvt. Ltd., 27"' K.M.Be||ary Road, Settegere Village, Doddajala Post, 5 = _ Bangalore ~ 562 157. ...RES'PO'iND_Eix!.T.S 7 (By Sri M.R.Rajagopa|, Advocate for'C/LR.) This Writ Petitior:'_i's«_file_d u_ndejr Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of Ind--iag--pr--ayi-ng qu-a_sh Annexure~A impugned order passed in'~i\#i.A',;'No.1t3.7/2306-, on the file of District and Sessions Judge .Fas'L{i*.rack. Co"urt--II, Bangalore Rural District,;at'i3ganqa=i__ore dateogS~;i2.._2.D07. Trii'is'i'W.r;i"i;g Peti§i;i'on"'~co'rning"'o'ri'tor hearing this day, the court made.the-'fol.lowing_:1-...___ - l C if-oiR'pER _;T'i':e peti't5.Qfie'r filed a suit seeking for a decree of was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC A"to"-l*T¢str'a:i"n..,ll_th.lev»"defendants from interfering with their a pea"'c--efu.{"'possession and enjoyment. The trial Court m"*--,Tre_iected'*'the said application. The petitioner filed an in MA No.157/2006 in the Court of Sessions ll -*3'udge,Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District. The V4"
appeal was allowed and injunction was granted defendants. Hence, the present Petition.
2. The learned counselt__appearingc».for"f"th:e'~.VV petitioners contends that the"*o.:.F:q§i'-er of the 'ap'pelV'iate"Court'V' is erroneous. He subinits thatx:sc.heduie'"lands being gomai lands could not in favour of the plaintiffs. T§he'refi_ore,::'_he .cont.en'd_s,VVth'ati when the very grant of land apipeiilate Court committed an error in .g ra'nti.ng«.inju_n'ci;_ion._' Efiri.,V_V_l3.'V.B'adrinath, learned counsel appearing i'orx'the:'"petifioners contends that as on the date of filing of t_he.__s.ui't;:"'tti_e facts would disclose that the petitioners are in pos"ses.sfioiti.i"of the lands in question. The possession is it cla.i.rned"':on the basis of the grant made in their favour. 'Tffherefere, whether the grant made is valid or not is a "V-'rnatter to be decided by the trial Court at the time of consideration of the suit. Q?!"
4. Heard counseis.
5. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs"are' ~ possession as on the date of the grant, T;h.e'"coen;j'centiion is that gomai lands could not have lsieen petitioners. Irrespective ofi.t:'he_ contentiognsgraised,' the * if vaiidity of the grant order req:u.i.rue'si.to"-.i.)'e dhete-rrninted at the trial of the suit. At this"stag.e','-t_i_tf'§--i)iiiotjiafj_aei improper to hoid that the"g'ran.tii:is \réii'd one-ppo'sé'd't"o law. The said issue is to be tried by "The records would disclose that the grant"w.aVS_ rn,a'de"iiVin favour of the petitioners and the date of filing of the suit show g_'the"'naa"m:eiiiiffiithte plaintiffs. Hence, on this ground the app'eV|'late.'Co_:i.rt granted the injunction sought for. I find r.__no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The ,.:ij"_Cont"e_.ntion of the petitioner with regard to the vaiidity or otherwise of the grant could be raised at the of the suit. ggw For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Pet;j't'i'o'ri..'_'v--fiieVE'r:g§_'=_ devoid of merits is rejected.
Ruie discharged. I «. "