Basavaling And Anr vs Dashrath And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3755 Kant

                            1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

             MFA No.202539/2018 (CPC)

Between:

1. Basavaling,
S/o.Shivanand Gundagi,
Age: 29 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.village: Morambi & Bhalki,
Taluk: Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar-585 328.

2. Shivanand,
S/o.Mahadevappa Gundagi,
Age: 61 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.village: Morambi & Bhalki,
Taluk: Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar-585 328.
                                    ... Appellants
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)

And:

1. Dashrath,
S/o.Tulsiram Patil,
Since dead, Rep. by L.Rs.

(a) Smt.Ratnamala,
W/o.late Dasharath,
Aged about 66 years,
                                2




Occ: Household Work,
R/o. Morambi village & Post,
Taluk: Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar-585 328.

(b) Smt.Chaya,
D/o.late Dasharath,
Aged about 43 years,
Occ: Household,
R/o.Valasangi,
Taluk: Ahmedpur,
Dist: Latur,
State: Maharashtra-413 512.

(c) Daivasheela,
D/o.late Dasharath,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Household,
R/o.Ashiti,
Taluk: Pandrapur,
Dist: Solapur,
State: Maharashtra-413 001.

(d) Smt.Shilpa,
D/o.late Dasharath,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Household,
R/o.Babhagaon,
Taluk & Dist: Latur,
State: Maharashtra-413 512.

(e) Smt.Seema,
D/o.late Dasharath,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ: Household,
R/o.Barsi, Taluk: Barsi,
Dist: Solapur,
State: Maharashtra-413 001.
                              3




2. Shashikanth,
S/o.Dashrath Patil,
Age: 35 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.village: Morambi & Bhalki,
Taluk: Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar-585 328.
                                              ... Respondents

(By Sri Ravi B.Patil, Advocate for R-1(a) to R1(c)
and R-2)


      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, praying to allow this appeal and to
appropriately modify the order dt.19.11.2018 passed in
I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.38/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Bhalki and to pass any other appropriate orders, int
her interest of justice.

      This appeal coming on for orders, this day, the Court
delivered the following:-


                        JUDGMENT

MFA No.202539/2018 is filed by the plaintiff

aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2018 passed in

O.S.No.38/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Bhalki,

upon the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39

Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad interim order restraining the

defendants/their agents from causing illegal interference

and obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the suit schedule property.

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the

owners in possession of suit schedule property consisting

of 5 acres of land having purchased the same in terms of

deeds of sale dated 26.06.2001 and 21.11.2001 and have

been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1

and his wife had executed first of the aforesaid deeds of

sale dated 26.06.2001 for a valuable consideration in

favour of Plaintiff No.1 conveying 3 acres of suit land.

Remaining 2 acres of land was purchased by Plaintiff No.2

under the sale deed dated 21.11.2001 from one

Mr.Rajappa who in turn had purchased the same from

defendant No.1. That though the defendants are not

having any right, title and interest over the suit schedule

property, have been causing interference and obstructing

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property by the plaintiff. In response to the said

application, defendants filed objections. The sale of suit

schedule property by the defendants in favour of the

Plaintiff No.1 in terms of deed of sale dated 26.06.2001 is

not disputed. The sale of 2 acres of land by the defendant

in favour of Rajappa who in turn sold the same to the

Plaintiff No.2 in terms of deed of sale dated 21.11.2001 is

also not disputed. The possession of the property by the

plaintiffs is also not disputed. However, it is contended by

the defendant that subsequent to sale of the property,

there was widening of the road on the eastern side of the

plaint schedule property resulting in lessening the extent

of the plaint schedule property as well as the remaining

property of 3 acres 14 guntas retained by the defendants

which is on the northern side of the suit schedule property.

That despite reduction of area, the plaintiffs are claiming

the land belonging to the defendants. It is this dispute

which has led to filing of the present suit.

3. The trial court, by the impugned order, having

taken into consideration the aforesaid admitted facts and

circumstances, has partly allowed the application under

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff directing

the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and plaintiff to maintain status-

quo in respect of the plaint schedule land.

4. This Court, by order dated 27.12.2018, had

modified the said order of status-quo permitting the

appellant to harvest the standing sugarcane crop to the

extent of 5 acres in Survey No.177/*/1 being the suit

schedule property. The present grievance of the appellant

is that though the trial court has granted an interim order

of status-quo, it is not clear as to the nature and extent of

operation of the status-quo order. Hence, the present

appeal is filed to the extent seeking clarification of the said

order of status-quo.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and

respondents.

6. The fact that the plaintiffs purchased the suit

schedule property in terms of deed of sale dated

26.06.2001 and 21.11.2001, is not in dispute. The fact

that the plaintiffs were placed in possession of the property

described in the aforesaid deeds of sale which is reflected

in the plaint is also not in dispute. However, it appears

there seems to have been an expansion of the road during

the year 2014 on eastern side of the plaint schedule

property. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant have

placed any material with respect to the fact of expansion

of road resulting in reduction of land purchased by the

plaintiffs and the land retained by the defendants. This

aspect of the matter has to be tried and adjudicated in the

suit pending before the trial court. Without making any

observation on the merits or demerits of the case or with

regard to the contentions raised by the parties, the present

appeal is allowed for limited purpose of clarification with

regard to the status-quo order.

7. Appeal is partly allowed. In view of the earlier

order dated 27.12.2018 passed by this Court, permitting

the appellant to harvest the standing sugarcane crop to

the extent of 5 acres in Survey No.177/*/1 being the suit

schedule property, the order of status-quo granted by the

trial court on 19.11.2018 shall be with respect to nature,

possession and title of the property till disposal of the suit.

Needless to observe that parties are at liberty to raise such

contention in support of their respective claims as

permissible under law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BNV