Sri L P Siddappa vs Sri Galappa
2021 Latest Caselaw 6245 Kant

                                    M.F.A.No.3570/2021

                               1
                                                     M




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3570/2021 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI L.P.SIDDAPPA
S/O LATE LINGE GOWDA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

1.     SRI MANTE SWAMY
       S/O LATE L.P.SIDDAPPA
       MAJOR

2.     SRI SHIVAKUMAR
       S/O LATE L.P.SIDDAPPA
       MAJOR

3.     SRI JAYASHANKARA
       S/O LATE L.P.SIDDAPPA
       MAJOR

4.     SMT.BHUVANESHWARI
       D/O LATE L.P.SIDDAPPA
       MAJOR

5.     SRI SHANMUKHA
       S/O LATE L.P.SIDDAPPA
       MAJOR

       ALL ARE R/AT
       SY.NO.63/1, MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
       KRISHNARAJA SAGARA DHAKLE
       RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI
       BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
       BANGALORE - 560 060                ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI P.SURESH, ADVOCATE)
                                        M.F.A.No.3570/2021

                             2
                                                         M




AND:

SRI GALAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT MALIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 060                        ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) OF
CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2021
PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU      RURAL    DISTRICT,  BENGALURU       IN
O.S.NO.254/2020 ON IA NOS.1 & 2.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Aggrieved by the order of temporary

injunction granted against them, the defendants in

O.S.No.254/2020 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru have preferred

the above appeal.

3. The respondent filed O.S.No.254/2020 before

the trial Court against the appellants alleging specific

performance of agreement of sale dated 24.02.2012 and M.F.A.No.3570/2021

M

endorsement dated 28.06.2012 in respect of the suit

schedule property.

4. The subject matter of the suit is land bearing

Survey No.63/1 measuring 2 acres out of 3 acres 6

guntas situated at Maragondanahalli village, Bengaluru

South Taluk.

5. The respondent alleged that the appellants'

father Sri Siddappa executed agreement of sale in his

favour on 24.02.2012 initially in respect of 30 guntas of

land. He claims that later under the endorsement dated

28.06.2012 Siddappa agreed to sell 2 acres including

earlier 30 guntas for consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-. It

was further claimed that by the time agreement of sale

dated 24.02.2012 was executed, Siddappa had received

Rs.32,00,000/-.

6. Regarding the said property, Siddappa had

filed O.S.No.156/1993 against one Ameerbi, her husband

Mohammed Yusuf Khan and Renukappa for specific

performance of agreement of sale. That suit was decreed M.F.A.No.3570/2021

M

on 29.03.2001. Against that order, Renukappa preferred

RFA No.404/2002 before this Court which came to be

dismissed on 30.05.2008. Challenging that order,

Renukappa preferred Civil Appeal

Nos.7398-7399/2010 which came to be dismissed on

14.11.2019.

7. It is the case of the respondent that after suit

was decreed, Siddappa filed execution petition for

execution of decree in O.S.No.156/1993 and the Court

Commissioner executed sale deed in his favour on

05.07.2005. Therefore, Siddappa had become owner of

the property as such he executed the agreement of sale

and endorsement. They claimed that because of the

pendancy of Civil Appeals, the sale deed was not

executed.

8. Pending the Civil Appeals before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, Siddappa died. The respondent further

claims that after disposal of the Civil Appeals by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, he approached the appellants to

execute the sale deed, but they declined to execute the M.F.A.No.3570/2021

M

sale deed. Therefore, they sought decree for specific

performance.

9. In the suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.1 for

grant of temporary injunction against the appellants

against alienation of the property. On their appearance,

the appellants contested the suit and the application.

Initially exparte temporary injunction was granted.

Therefore the appellants filed I.A.No.2 for vacating the

interim injunction order.

10. The appellants disputed the execution of the

agreement of sale and the endorsement. They also

claimed that the said documents are fraudulent one, they

denied receipt of consideration and set up delay as

ground to disbelieve the case of the respondent.

11. The trial Court on hearing both side, by the

impugned order dismissed the application of the

appellants for vacating the interim injunction and

confirmed the interim injunction granted under I.A.No.1

holding that the plaintiff has made out prima-facie case.

M.F.A.No.3570/2021

M

12. Sri P.Suresh, learned Counsel for the

appellants reiterating the grounds of the appeal submits

that the trial Court could not have granted exparte

temporary injunction in respect of agricultural land. He

further submits that the agreement of sale and the

endorsement are doubtful documents. He submits the

trial Court without considering the delay in filing the suit

and other circumstances has granted interim injunction,

therefore the order is perverse. It is also contended that

the criminal case is filed against the respondent for

forging the agreement of sale.

13. Sri N.R.Jagadeeshwara, learned Counsel for

the respondent justifies the impugned order reiterating

the grounds stated in the plaint as well in the affidavit

filed in support of I.A.No.1. He further submits that the

appellants and his father needed money for family

necessity and to attend to the litigation, therefore they

have executed the agreement of sale. He submits that the

criminal case has no relevance for the purpose of this

case. He further submits that the appellants are in the M.F.A.No.3570/2021

M

habit of executing such agreement and receiving money

from the plaintiff. He submits that one Kalegowda has

filed similar suit against the appellants in

O.S.No.1206/2020 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, that itself goes to

show that the appellants are likely to dispose of the

property, if injunction is vacated.

14. It is settled position of law that the order

granting injunction being discretionary order, the

Appellate Court cannot interfere with the same unless it is

shown that the impugned order suffers the vice of

perversity, arbitrariness or illegality.

15. The appellants did not dispute that Siddappa

was owner of the property. There is no dispute that the

suit for specific performance filed by their father against

the vendors was decreed on 29.03.2001. It is also not

disputed that in execution of the decree, sale deed was

executed in favour of Siddappa. The fact that the legal

proceedings reached upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court was

not disputed.

M.F.A.No.3570/2021

M

16. The respondent's Counsel has produced

before this Court the copies of the Bank Account

statement which indicates that some amount was passed

to appellant No.1 and his father Siddappa. At this stage,

the appellants have not explained why such amount was

transferred to their account. Whether the agreement of

sale and signatures of Siddappa on the same are genuine

or forged are the matter of trial. The appellants did not

dispute pendency of O.S.No.1206/2020 filed against them

by one Kalegowda for the very relief of specific

performance.

17. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the trial

Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has made

out prima-facie case. Till the suit is disposed of, the

property requires to be protected. The very fact of

pendency of O.S.No.1206/2020 shows that there is

imminent threat of alienation if injunction is vacated.

18. So far as the contention that ex-parte

temporary injunction could not have been granted

regarding agricultural land, that order was not challenged M.F.A.No.3570/2021

M

by the appellants. Now by disposal of the application on

merits such order merged into the final order. Whether

ex-parte interim injunction granted by the trial Court was

contrary to Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,

1961 is not the question for consideration in this appeal.

Therefore that contention cannot be countenanced now.

19. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court

does not find any perversity, arbitrariness or illegality in

the impugned order of the trial Court. Therefore the

appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KSR