Sri Senthil Kumaran vs Sri S G Srinivas on 29 June, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Senthil Kumaran vs Sri S G Srinivas on 29 June, 2011

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

   $..§< ;M.anjunath, Adv.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA{¥J.(_§";i'J;:{34T'F{VE:V"' 

DATED THIS THE 29"" DAY OF JUf\£ME;"'Z3:{)l1jj.  T»  L

BEFORE;

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N;'\4.Ei\I.L,ir3oP2:._'i+Ag' <;0x}vab'A '~--..

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APP'ETAjL'TNO.49'Si  i'O_:LM1m(CPC) V'

BETWEEN:

1. Sri Senthil Kumaran V V
S/o.K.K.Seluvar:ajar:-- 
Aged a:bou_t'j'33 \,=éea:;rs.-~' 

2. Sri l~iarT;3:a"Ka--.nnéTjj-._   ;
S/Q.K;.K'."Sé.§uva!faja_h* '-
:'Agéd' TAafb.out"i'3'1 years;

E5--9th«.  
D.F\5Q.1164/Af .« V 
_ _2"d Main", Ar'avi1'1daﬁagar
" _{ Mysore 570 02.3
 V  """  ..APPELLANTS

   

 :2'e}:'s;'G,srinivas
"S/'o.Dr.S.Gururajachar
Aged about 40 years

   N0'i52§ 2"" Cross

K.S.R,T!C Layout
Chikkailasandra
Bangaiore ~ 560 061



2

And aiso residing at:

D.No.448, '\!idya Shree'

1" Cross, Maruthi Temple Road
Kuvempunagar, Saraswathipuram _-
Thonachikoppai, Chamaraj Qviohaiia. 
Mysore ~ 570 023   A.

2. Smtjagadamba
Aged about 65 years 2 ._
W/o.Late Sri B.G.Gurudeya»r,ad~h_ya
R/at No.10; 2"FW1ain  " ' 
Jayanagar, Mysore' _   _ * 

 V  1    RESPONDENTS

(By Sri O. ShamBhat,,iXd'v,ffor' R"1_ and AV 

M/s. P' Nata raju' 'Ass-ociates, -.Adv«s.'"fOf'r.. R2)

This Mr-iAgié i'i--.ied"'~-Emd'e.r,_:Order 43 Rule 10') of CPC
agaisnt%__the'~,drti«:e,f V da't'eVd" 15.__Q4,.2011 passed on LA in
o.s.N:o.634,'i20o9'I:m thefile of I"Addi. Senior Civil Judge &
CJM, i/iysoret Vdismisisein'-g_1;-A 'filed under Order 39 Rules 1 &
2 cpc far 111. a    

_ _Thisi°appeai'.=ce'iniVﬁ'§ on for admission this day; the
Co¢u_§:_ft aeiiveredthe foiiowing:

JUDGMENT

\if_\_3"itﬁn.i'i:i1Ae consent of ieamed counsei, the matter is heard" finai disposai. Perused the record.

2. Plaintiffs in 0.S.634;'O9 pending on the fiie efl wzéddi. Sr. Civii Judge, Mysore are the apeeiiantst Respe:-ndents are the defendants in the said suit. The suit \\s X .1 3 is for passing a judgment and decree.'~--...t:it':.A.:'~sti3er.iifit::tV'd"~__ ijerforrriance of the contract d1i're~C:t".tVt.he;__1?"

defendant/13' respondent toexecute and regs?-ester 3 reigdiiiarﬁ saie deed in terms of the agrteerrient of safe £15.09 in respect of the propemr .'v'.iVri..tthe seheduie of the piaint.

3. I;;*iciisi3ii*;ite(':'3A«.iY,:L ~:the"'AA::ji'$«""'~~-d.efendant said the property as per a registered saie cieed Tii.e"'s'tiit was initiaiiy instituted the property having been said by the""1§':"'defieni:iant..in favour of the 2" defendant, an 3f3iZii"i'ca,tiorii--_for"irn'bieading was ﬂied to impfead the property, the same was aiiowed and the ;aLiirehas.er: impleaded as 2"' defendant. An application was ﬂied by the appetlants / tdeiteiirittiftfs to restrain the 2" defendant from carrying out wariy sert dz' censtructien ever the piaini: schedute proeerty. The seit has been dpipesed by the defendants by fiiing written statement/s. The 2"" defendant fiied objeetieris to R» /2 4 the said application. The Trial Court upon the matter has dismissed the applica't'i':_tn.'ff l"Eie:ni':1V' aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this a..pi:ieaIi.

5. The photograpl"Ls"'Eif0duced al_oi5..:g' aippeai L' memo, which are not in dis_p_lu'te__sh_Vow,..'t'ha:t_ajoortion of roof of the 1" floor "fa'{;ingi--. i.e., towards West has been'A're'n1ove"d"»ati::d rieeollastering work in progress. has undertaken renov@_tl.9,'l of existing building. A memogwastilled':'i.n:g"the'rfrvl--al' Court by the advocate for the 2" defendaantv on reads as follows:

suhnﬁtted that the 2"" defendant wili not

-denjoléiish. the plaint schedule oropertv. The 2""

. is in possession and enjoyment of the S'-i:l'l€id'UAl€ property ever since the date of purchase ..¢?VaVs&:.)9"2009§ This defendant is undertaking minor AA reoair works which was in dilapidated condition. In Vl€W of the aforesaid facts, the 2" defendant wili undertake not to demolish the scheduie nrooerti is /'Z5 The Triai Court has taken note of the:_:"sai'd:: The second respondent reiterate-sth-eesa7rne_..fék:ts even ' this appeait

6. Since a portion -ﬂfirst ﬂoor roof has been is not permitted to cornpletetheupinsterin'§j;;;reVnV'e"§'at1on work, the same wouldfbhe"~&:.gjI2>trjrner:te"l; tn' structure and wouid aisci' vtheﬂinterests of both parties. Any etc. made to the suit property shah}! the result cf the suit pending before the4"Tn.eI Cdurt'.- 2"' respondent/ 2" defendant sh'e§..1'I':'ac't. mt--.termsV5f"tvhe said memo/undertaking and shelf nr;3t"'e¥:e{'inj"4eny_j..equity on account of the renovation / trr.p_rove.néer:.t'tV'etc., undertaken by her, in respect of the suit ptetiertyf such acts being at her cost and risk oniy. 7' The suit being one for speciﬁc perferrnance;

"the pieadings being eommete, keeping En view the previsiens under the Karnataka {Case Féew Management En Snberdinate Courts) RN98; 2005, the Txrief Court is V, /, *5 M' directed to expedite the triaf and decide the as practicabfe and at any event, within_a_:f:e.rit£d" {gt dr2Te "__ year from the date a copy of this;.JjIud'g'n2«te'r'2t is record. ' ' t A The appeal stands dispdsieid» of a<:tie.rd"m--.§}ly.;ﬂ:

V .V 'vii,/9* 3 AM;

sac*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court