1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5186 OF 2020 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.T.S. NAGARAJA
S/O LATE T.K.SAMPANGI
AGEDA ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.74/2
2ND MAIN, CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU-560018
... APPELLANT
[BY SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE [VIDEO CONFERENCE]
AND:
1. SMT. RADHAMMA
W/O VENKATESH C
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.12, 2ND CROSS
14TH MAIN, NEAR PARK
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 023.
2. SRI. S. RAJU
S/O LATE SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MO.7, 3RD MAIN ROAD
4TH CROSS, T.R.NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 028.
2
3. SRI. SATISH K.
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.12, 2ND CROSS
14TH MAIN, NEAR PARK
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 023. ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. A.G.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
C/R [PHYSICAL HEARING]
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.09.2020 PASSED ON IA.NO.1, O.S.NO.3232/2020 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-17),
REJECTING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39, RULES 1
AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 15.9.2020 passed by the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No.3232/2020 by which the application filed by the appellant-plaintiff for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents -defendants from 3 putting up construction over the suit property was rejected.
2. The facts which are evident from the plaint are that the plaintiff claims title to the suit property in terms of the sale deed dated 9.9.1991 executed by one N. Narasimhaiah, who had purchased it from one N.S. Rajagopal in terms of the sale deed by 26.11.1980. The plaintiff contends that the defendants taking advantage of the lock down due to COVID-19 pandemic, had trespassed into the suit property and put up construction illegally. The plaintiff alleged that he came to know of the said construction on 6.7.2020 and filed a suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for consequent relief of possession of the suit property by removing the construction put up by the defendants on the suit property. The defendants contend that they are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and claimed title through Seetharamaiah who was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.123 of Katriguppe village. The 4 appellant-plaintiff had filed an application for temporary injunction restraining respondents-defendants from putting up further construction on the suit property. The application was contested by the respondents-defendants by filling their objection and they contended that they were the owners of the suit property and that they were in possession of the same and that they had constructed a building thereon. The respondents-defendants denied the title of the appellant-plaintiff to the suit property.
3. The Court below noticed that the suit was for declaration of title and for consequent relief of possession of the suit property by removing structures put up by the respondents-defendants over the suit property. The Court below also noticed that both the parties were claiming title over the suit property, though under different owners. The appellant-plaintiff claimed that the suit property lay within Sy. No.124 while the respondents-defendants claimed that the suit property lay within Sy. No.123. Since the plaintiff categorically admitted that the defendants were in 5 possession of the suit property and that they had put up construction, the Court below refused to grant an order of temporary injunction as that would have tilted the balance in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff is in appeal.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.
5. As rightly contended by learned Counsel for the respondents-defendants, the suit is filed not only for the relief of declaration but also for possession of the suit property by removing the construction put up by the respondents-defendants. When the appellant-plaintiff had admitted that the respondents-defendants are in possession of the suit property and have put up construction thereon, the title of the respective parties to the suit property has to be decided by the Court below. In that view of the matter, even if the respondents- defendants put up construction of whatsoever nature over 6 the suit property, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the suit. If the appellant plaintiff succeeds in the suit, any or all construction that may be put up in the suit property shall be liable to be removed. Hence, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for temporary injunction. I do not see any merit in this appeal.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs