Karnataka High Court
Sri. C. Srinivasa vs Sri. M. Manjunath on 17 December, 2021
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
M.F.A.No.1045/2020 c/w
M.F.A.No.1048/2020
1
M
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17THDAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1045/2020 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1048/2020 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI C SRINIVASA
S/O SRI M CHINNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.133, 5TH CROSS
"VEERABHADRA NAGARA"
HOSAKERAHALLI
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 085 ...APPELLANT
(COMMON)
(BY SRI MOHAN.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI M MANJUNATH
S/O LATE MURUGEESH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2. SRI M RAJESH
S/O SRI M MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.130
OPPOSITE TO PES COLLEGE
OF ENGINEERING
HOSAKERAHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU - 560 085 ...RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
(BY SRI T A KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)
M.F.A.No.1045/2020 c/w
M.F.A.No.1048/2020
2
M
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE FILED
UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED BY THE XIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-18) IN O.S.NO.3452/2019 ON IA NOS.3 & 2
RESPECTIVELY.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
With consent of both side, the matters are taken up
for final disposal.
2. Heard.
3. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application
for temporary injunction and allowing the application of
the defendants for vacating the interim injunction, the
plaintiff in O.S.No.3452/2019 has preferred the above
appeals.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the father and
son. The appellant filed aforesaid suit against the
defendants for permanent injunction. The subject matter
of the suit is house property bearing No.133 out of
Survey No.74 of Hosakerehalli Grama, Bengaluru South
Taluk measuring 40' x 30'.
M.F.A.No.1045/2020 c/w
M.F.A.No.1048/2020
M
5. The property in Survey No.74 originally
belonged to one Eraramaiah. That was granted to him by
the Government on 28.12.1975 under the Government
Scheme dated 13.05.1972. The appellant claims to have
purchased the same under the General Power of Attorney
and the affidavit accompanying the General Power of
Attorney dated 06.09.2003. He claims that he is in
possession of the property all along.
6. In the suit, the appellant filed application for
temporary injunction restraining the respondents from
interfering with his peaceful possession. Initially, the trial
Court had granted ex-parte temporary injunction. The
defendants appeared and contested the application and
the suit. They also filed I.A.No.2 for vacating the interim
injunction.
7. Respondents claimed that Murugesh the
father of respondent No.1 was granted 4 acres of land in
Survey No.87. They further claimed that some people
encroached over the said property. Therefore, he filed
O.S.No.4946/1988 against the encroachers. That was
M.F.A.No.1045/2020 c/w
M.F.A.No.1048/2020
M
decreed. The respondents claim that they took
possession of the property in Execution Petition
No.2366/2005.
8. Defendant No.1 filed O.S.No.5295/2012
against Sri M.Chinnaswamy, father of the plaintiff for
declaration and possession in respect of Survey No.87.
That was decreed on 20.02.2019. It is submitted that for
execution of that decree, execution petition was filed by
defendant No.1.
9. In the meantime, defendant No.1 and his
siblings filed O.S.No.2502/1992 for partition and in that
suit, Survey No.87 was allotted to the share of defendant
No.1. On the basis of those documents, the defendants
claim that they are in possession. Relying on those
documents, the trial Court vacated the interim injunction
order and rejected the application of the appellant for
injunction.
10. The trial Court failed to note that neither
Survey No.74 nor Site No.133 were subject matter of
M.F.A.No.1045/2020 c/w
M.F.A.No.1048/2020
M
O.S.No.5295/2012 nor the appellant was party to the said
suit. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondents
submits that the respondents are ready to maintain the
status-quo and the matter may be disposed of directing
the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
11. The documents produced by the appellant, at
this stage, prima-facie show that he was in possession of
the property as on the date of the suit. Therefore that
status shall be maintained till disposal of
O.S.No.3452/2019.
12. In view of submission of learned Counsel for
the respondents, with the above observations, these
appeals are disposed of.
The trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by any of the
observations made in this order. Both parties shall
cooperate for trial.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
