Karnataka High Court
Sri Muni Reddy vs Smt Sarojamma on 17 December, 2021
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
M.F.A.No.6983/2019
1
M
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6983/2019 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUNI REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT NO.25, 1ST CROSS
BHUVANAPPA LAYOUT
TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD
D.R.C.POST, BANGALORE - 560 029
SRI S.M.JEEYANNA REDDY
SINCE DECEASED
REP. BY HIS LRS 2 TO 4
2. SMT.GEETHA JEEYANNA REDDY
W/O OF LATE S.M.JEEYANNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
3. SMT.J.JAYANTHI REDDY
D/O LATE S.M.JEEYANNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
4. SRI J.MITHESH KUMAR
S/O LATE S.M.JEEYANNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
A2 TO A4 ARE
R/AT NO.14, 3RD A CROSS
21ST MAIN, BTM LAYOUT 1 PHASE
II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
M.F.A.No.6983/2019
2
M
AND:
1. SMT.SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE S.M.CHANDRAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT NO.3, 1ST MAIN ROAD
SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C.POST
BANGALORE - 560 029
2. SRI LOKANATH ALIAS LOKANATH REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT NO.39, 2ND CROSS
KAVERI HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT
DRC POST, BANGALORE - 560 029
3. SMT.VIDYAVATHY A SHETTY
W/O SRI ASHOK SHETTY
MAJOR
R/AT NO.164/D, II MAIN ROAD
SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 020
4. SRI K.N.RAO
S/O LATE K.V.RAO
MAJOR
R/AT NO.2, LAKE VIEW
DEFENCE COLONY, JALAHALLI WEST
BANGALORE - 560 015
N.H.SHIVAMURTHY
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LR R.5
5. SRI.A.KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.96, NAGENAHALLI
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 064
6. S.C.DASUARATHA
S/O LATE S.M.CHANDRAPPA
M.F.A.No.6983/2019
3
M
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT SITE NO.27
7TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR
MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA
BANGALORE - 560 068
7. SRI S.C.THRIBHUVANESH
S/O OF LATE S.M.CHANDRAPPA
AGED BOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, 1ST MAIN ROAD
SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C. POST
BANGALORE - 560 029
8. S.C.SHASHIKALA
D/O LATE S.M.CHANDRAPPA
W/O SRI BABU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, 1ST MAIN ROAD
SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C. POST
BANGALORE - 560 029
9. M/S.NCC URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,
A SUBSIDIARY OF M/S.NCC LIMITED
FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S.NAGARJUNA
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED AND
HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT
NO.17/4, RAMANAMAHARSHI ROAD
SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY MR.V.MURALI KRISHNAM RAJU
10. SMT.PADMAMMA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AND
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
MAJOR
R/AT KUNDANA VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
11. SMT.JAYAMMA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AND
W/O RAMAIAH
MAJOR
R/AT HESARAGHATTA
M.F.A.No.6983/2019
4
M
YELAHANKA HOBLI - 560 088
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
12. SMT.N.H.MANIKYYAMMA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AND
W/O OF LATE MANJUNATHA
MAJOR
R/AT NO.68, "ASHIRWAD"
3RD MAIN, NEAR MUNESWARASWAMY TEMPLE
SOMESWARANAGARA
CHIKKABOMMASANDRA
GKVK POST, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 065
13. SMT.S.SHASHIKALA
W/O N.H.SHIVAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
14. KUMARI DEEPA S MURTHY
D/O LATE N.H.SHIVAMURTHY
MAJOR
R13 AND R14 ARE
R/AT NO.56, KAILAASA
TEACHERS COLONY
NAGARABHAVI
YESHAVANTHAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE - 560 072 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C S PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R9 & R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104 READ WITH
UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2019 PASSED BY THE XLIV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
IN O.S.NO.7384/2007 ON IA NO.18.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.F.A.No.6983/2019
5
M
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2019
passed by XLIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7384/2007 have
preferred the above appeal.
3. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the
respondents were the defendants before the trial Court.
For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be
referred to according to their ranks before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.7384/2007 against
the defendants for declaration that they are entitled to
1/4th share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property,
sale deed dated 28.11.1994 executed by defendant Nos.5
and 6 in favour of defendant No.3 does not bind them,
declaration that the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.7300/1995 and O.S.No.7271/1999 passed by
Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru do not bind them,
declaration that the sale deed dated 29.06.2011 in
respect of 2 acres in item No.1 of suit schedule property
M.F.A.No.6983/2019
M
and the joint development agreement between defendant
No.3 and defendant No.10 do not bind them and for
mesne profit.
5. The plaintiffs claimed that their father
purchased the suit property from one Hanumanthappa in
the year 1970 from the joint family income. They also
claim that Hanumanthappa sold the property to defendant
No.3, therefore the sale in favour of defendant No.3 was
void.
6. The defendants contested the suit denying the
identity of the property and claim of the plaintiffs. In the
suit the plaintiffs initially filed IA Nos.1 to 3 seeking
injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 3 to restrain them
from changing the nature of property or alienating the
property etc.
7. The trial Court by the order dated 03.12.2007
rejected those applications categorically recording the
finding that the plaintiffs have no prima-facie case, the
balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants
M.F.A.No.6983/2019
M
and if injunction is granted, the defendants will be put to
irreparable injury.
8. The plaintiffs challenged that order before this
Court in MFA No.1149/2008 (CPC). The order dated
16.06.2009 in MFA No.1149/2008 shows that the Counsel
for the plaintiffs, after arguing the matter for sometime
withdrew the appeal. The order further shows that on his
submission, this Court disposed of the appeal issuing
directions to the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the
suit without being influenced by the observation made
during the course of the order on I.A.Nos.1 to 3.
9. Such being the fact, when the case was
posted before the trial Court for evidence of PW.1, the
plaintiffs again filed I.A.Nos.16 to 19 seeking temporary
injunction against defendant Nos.3 and 10 to restrain
them from constructing on the property and alienating
the property.
10. The trial Court by the impugned order
deferred the said applications for hearing along with the
M.F.A.No.6983/2019
M
main suit. The trial Court holds that the original suit is of
the year 2007 and similar applications were already
rejected considering merits. The trial Court also holds that
after lapse of 12 years, when the matter is posted for
evidence of PW.1 plaintiffs have again come up with the
same applications, therefore the applications shall be
considered along with the main matter.
11. Aggrieved by the said order, the above appeal
is filed. Now the question before this Court is whether the
trial Court committed any perversity or arbitrariness in
deferring IA Nos.16 to 19 for consideration along with the
main suit.
12. The facts narrated above and which are not in
dispute show that the trial Court had rejected similar
application as long back as in the year 2007. By
withdrawal of the appeal filed against that order, the
finding with regard to prima-facie case held against the
plaintiffs stood concluded.
M.F.A.No.6983/2019
M
13. When the plaintiffs have no prima-facie case,
the question of considering the balance of convenience or
irreparable injury does not arise. Moreover, there was
direction by this Court to the trial Court that too at the
instance of the plaintiffs themselves to dispose of the
matter as expeditiously. If the plaintiffs go on repeating
such applications, the trial Court goes on considering
them, it would have amounted to non-compliance of the
directions issued by this Court.
14. Under the circumstances, this Court does not
find any perversity or arbitrariness or illegality in the trial
Court deferring the applications for consideration along
with the main matter.
15. When a person seeks equitable relief, the
conduct of the person seeking such relief also matters.
The facts narrated above show that having secured
directions from this Court for early disposal of the suit
about 13 years, the plaintiffs have not cooperated for
disposal of the matter. On that count also, this appeal
deserves no merit.
M.F.A.No.6983/2019
M
16. Sri Padmanabha.V.Mahale, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Sri B.Sharath Kumar, learned
Counsel for the appellants on record submits that the
plaintiffs' only apprehension is that if at all they succeed
and the properties are sold, that may lead to multiplicity
of the proceedings and unnecessary complications.
17. In view of Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1881, any alienation effected during
pendency of the suit are subject to the result of the suit
and the decree that may be passed binds the purchasers
pending lis.
With such observation, this appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs
stood disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
