Karnataka High Court
Sri Range Gowda vs Chandre Gowda on 6 January, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
W.P.No.57075/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Sri.Range Gowda,
S/o.Jawreh Gowda,
Aged about 50 years,
R/of.Hasgannur Village,
Kadabagala Post,
Kundurro Hobli,
Aallur Taluk,
Hassan District. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri.Krishna Murthy.N., Adv.,)
AND:
1. Chandre Gowda,
S/o.Doddappa Gowda,
Aged about 45 years.
2. Eeregowda,
S/o.Kenche Gowda,
Aged about 50 years.
3. Sundresh,
S/o.Badre Gowda,
Aged about 50 years.
2
4. Gopala Gowda,
S/o.Badhre Gowda,
Aged about 48 years.
5. Swamy,
S/o.Shivegowda,
Aged about 50 years.
6. Jayaram,
S/o.Tammanna Gowda,
Aged about 30 years.
7. Satish,
S/o.Range Gowda,
Aged about 35 years.
8. Suresh,
S/o.Basave Gowda,
Aged about 40 years.
All are residents of
Bettadakeshavi Village,
Arehally Hobli,
Belur Taluk,
Hassan District. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.Harsha.D., Adv., for C/R1-8)
*****
This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by
the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Belur in MA No.37/2013
dated 9.12.2013 vide Ann-A and continue the interim order
granted by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) at Belur in
O.S.No.216/2012 vide Ann-C.
3
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 9.12.2013, passed by the Appellate Court in M.A.No.37/2013 reversing the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.216/2013 on I.A.No.2.
3. By the impugned order at Annexure-'A', the Appellate Court has reversed the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.2 and has dismissed I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner.
4. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5. Briefly stated the facts are:
4
The petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.216/2013 for permanent injunction contending that he is the owner of the suit schedule property measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.16 Block 1 situated at Bettadakesavi Grama and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The respondents have contended that sites formed in the suit schedule property have been granted in favour of the respondents and other villagers in the year 1991 under Ashraya scheme. The Trial Court by its order dated 7.10.2013 has allowed I.A.No.2 and has granted injunction in favour of the petitioner. The Appellate Court has reversed the order passed by the Trial Court and rejected I.A.No.2. Therefore, this writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Appellate Court has failed to consider the material on record in proper perspective. Further he submitted that the petitioner was granted 4 5 acres of land in Sy.No.16 Block 1 situated at Bettadakesavi Grama and the revenue records show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land and therefore, the Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents were granted sites formed in Sy.No.16 of Bettadakesavi grama and they are in possession and enjoyment of the sites. They have constructed houses and residing there. Therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The point that arises for my consideration is, 6 Whether the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court calls for interference?
10. It is relevant to note, the suit has been filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction. The petitioner contends that he was granted 4 acres of land in Sy.No.16 Block 1 situated at Bettadakesavi Grama and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The respondents contend that they were granted sites formed in Sy.No.16 in the year 1991 under Ashraya scheme. The petitioner has produced revenue records like grant certificate, RTC extracts, sketch and the mahazar drawn by the authorities. The respondents have produced hakku patras and also photographs showing that they have put up construction. The documents produced by the parties show that there is a serious question to be tried at the trial. In the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to direct both the parties not to change the nature of the 7 property and preserve status-quo as it exists now till the disposal of the suit.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is modified directing the petitioner and the respondents not to change the nature of the property and preserve status-quo as it exists now till the disposal of the suit.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Bss.