1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
M.F.A.NO.4508 OF 2020(CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI. M.KIRAN KUMAR
S/O C MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
NO.1048,OIL MILL ROAD
1ST CROSS, SAIT PALYAM ROAD
LINGARAJPURAM
BANGALORE 84
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.S.KANNUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI C VENKATASWAMY
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
R/AT NERIGA VILALGE
SARJAPUR HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
2. SRI C MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKANNA
AGEDA BOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.103, 2ND PHASE
2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BANGALORE 86
3. SMT KANTHAMMA
W/O LATE C MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2
4. SMT SUSHMA
W/O SATHYANARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R-3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1048
OIL MILL ROAD, 1ST CROSS
SAIT PALYAM ROAD, LINGARAJPURAM
BANGALORE 84.
5. SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE SAMPANGI RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT NERIGA VILLAGE
SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
6. SRI VENUGOPAL
S/O LATE VENAKTACHALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
7. SRI NANDAGOPALA
S/O LATE VENAKTACHALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
8. SRI M UMESH
S/O LATE VENAKTACHALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
9. SRI RAMESH B
S/O LATE VENAKTACHALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
10 . SRI M NAVALESH
S/O LATE VENAKTACHALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R-6 TO R-19 ARE RESIDING AT MUGALUR VILLAGE
SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
11 . SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE GULLA ABBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NERIGA VILLAGE
SARJAPUR HOBL, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
3
12 . SRI GOVINDA REDDY
S/O NAGAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT KODATHI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE
13 . SRI M CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT OLAGERE KALLAHALLI VILLAGE
SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-12
NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-11D/W )
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 05.10.2020, PASSED ON I.A.NO. 14 IN
O.S.NO. 207/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL DISMISSING THE I.A.NO. 14 FILED
UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Notice to respondent Nos.1 to 11 is dispensed with at the risk of the appellant.
2. In this appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.207/2016 is directed against the impugned order on I.A.No.14 filed by the appellant, whereby the contesting respondent No.12 who was 4 defendant No.12 in the suit, restraining him from interfering with the appellant's possession and enjoyment of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties.
3. I have heard Sri. G.S. Kannur, learned Senior counsel for the appellant and Sri. G. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for respondent No.12 and perused the material on record.
4. Respondent No.12 has filed an affidavit enclosing rough sketch showing location of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties, which were allegedly purchased by him from defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 26.05.2012.
5. Though several contentions are urged by the respective Senior counsel on merits and despite various averments being made in the affidavit accompanying the aforesaid sketch, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it fit and 5 proper to modify the impugned order passed by the trial Court and dispose of this appeal as indicated below.
6. In the result I pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 05.10.2020 passed in OS.No.207/2016 on I.A.No.14 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal is hereby modified. iii. Respondent No.12 is permitted to put up construction on the portion delineated by the letters A, B, C and D in the sketch accompanying the affidavit only in an extent of 4,000/- sq. ft. situated in item No.3 of the suit schedule properties.
iv. Respondent No.12 is restrained from putting up any construction, either temporary or permanent in the remaining extent of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties excluding the A, B, C and D area mentioned above in an extent of 4000 sq. ft.
v. Respondent No.12 shall also not claim any equity in respect of any construction put up on the aforesaid A, B, 6 C and D area and any such construction shall be subject to the result of the suit.
vi. It is however made clear that respondent No.12 shall be permitted to carry on agricultural operations in the remaining extent of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties.
vii. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits after giving sufficient opportunity to all parties as expeditiously as possible and at any rate on or before 30.11.2021.
viii. It is also made clear that the trial Court shall dispose of the suit on merits without being influenced by the observations or findings made in the impugned order and none of the parties are entitled to place reliance on any of the said observations or findings while urging their respective contentions.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bmc