Karnataka High Court
Sri Munisanjeevappa vs Sri Ravindra K on 17 January, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
M. F. A. NO.6928 OF 2021 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUNISANJEEVAPPA,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT PUTTAYANAPALYA,
9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RAVINDRA K,
S/O L.T. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT No.181,
DODDAMNE KRISHNAPPA BUILDING,
AREKERE, B.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 076.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N.CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION
151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DTD:04.12.2021 PASSED
ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.2269/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
2
(CCH-38), BENGALURU CITY, ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED
U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated
04.12.2021 on I.A.No.1 passed in O.S.No.2269/2019 by the
XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-38),
Bengaluru, has filed this appeal.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are
as under:
The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.2269/2019
seeking for the relief of perpetual injunction. In the said suit,
respondent filed the application for an order of temporary
injunction restraining the appellant from causing
obstruction/stall the ongoing construction activities of
compound wall and shed in the suit schedule property in any
way pending disposal of the suit. In support of the said
application, respondent has filed an affidavit contending that
he is the absolute owner and he continues in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He further
contended that he has acquired the suit property by virtue of
the gift deed dated 04.04.2018 executed by his brother
Sri.K.Jayaram. On the strength of the registered gift deed
the name of the respondent came to be entered in the
Corporation records and Katha was issued in the name of
respondent. It is further contended that originally the said
suit property was owned by Smt.Vimalamma and her
children. The said Smt.Vimalamma and her children sold the
suit schedule property in favour of brother of respondent
namely Sri.K.Jayaram under a registered sale deed dated
04.10.2011 and delivered the possession of the same to the
brother of respondent. Subsequently, rectification deed
came to executed on 07.08.2017. It is contended that the
appellant who is the stranger has no right or title over the
suit schedule property. The appellant by using his influence
and money threatened of taking over the possession.
Hence, the respondent has filed application seeking for an
order of temporary injunction. The appellant filed a written
statement denying the averments made in the plaint and
further contended that the revenue records are not title
deed. It is further contended that the sale deed executed by
Smt.Vimalamma and her children in favour of brother of
respondent was bogus has the vendors have no title to sell
the suit property. It is contended that the appellant has
paid the tax of the suit property and the appellant is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, he
prayed to dismiss the application. The Trial Court after
hearing the arguments of both sides allowed the application
and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the
appellant from causing obstruction/stall the ongoing
construction activities of compound wall and shed in the suit
schedule property in any way, pending disposal of the suit.
The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the
Trial Court has filed this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and also
learned counsel for respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is in possession of the suit schedule property
and appellant has produced the records. He further submits
that the Trial Court has not appreciated the documents
produced by the appellant. He further submits the Trial
Court has not assigned any reasons while passing the
impugned order. He submits that the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court is not a speaking order. He further
submits that the Trial Court has not applied its mind while
passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the Trial Court was justified in granting an
order of temporary injunction. He further submits that the
respondent has already carried out the construction and he
has produced the photographs to show that the construction
work has been already completed during pendency of
appeal. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be
dismissed.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The respondent has filed a suit for perpetual
injunction. In the said suit, respondent has filed application
seeking for an order of temporary injunction, on the ground
that the respondent is in possession of the suit schedule
property under the registered gift deed alleged to have been
executed by his brother Sri.K.Jayaram. It is also the case
of the respondent that the said property is standing in the
name of respondent in the Corporation records.
8. From the perusal of the impugned order, the Trial
Court has not assigned any reasons while passing the
impugned order but in view of the subsequent development
respondent has produced the photographs to show that the
respondent has already completed the construction work
during the pendency of appeal. In view of the construction
has been already completed by the respondent nothing
survives for consideration in this appeal. In view of the
same, this appeal is dismissed as the application filed by
the respondent has become infructuous.
9. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2021
does not survive for consideration and is accordingly
disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
GRD
