Sri. Munikaverappa vs Sri. Narayanan Ananthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 869 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

  WRIT PETITION NO.16236 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MUNIKAVERAPPA,
S/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT KAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 017.
                                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. VIGNESHWARA U., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. NARAYANAN ANANTHAN,
S/O. A. NARAYANAN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.7D,
RAMANIYAM PUSHKAR,
PHASE I, K.K. SALAI,
SHOLINGANALLUR,
CHENNAI - 600 119.

                                         ....RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SHAILAJA, ADVOCATE)
                             2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2021 IN M.A.NO.22/2021 PASSED
BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2021 ON I.A.NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.97/2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE     RURAL   DISTRICT,   BANGALORE    VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                       ORDER

The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging

the order dated 28.01.2021 passed on I.A.No.1 in

O.S.No.97/2021 by the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru

Rural District, Bengaluru vide Annexure-B and same has

been confirmed in M.A.No.22/2021 vide order dated

30.07.2021 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A, has filed this writ

petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition

are as under:

The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.97/2021

seeking for the relief of perpetual injunction against the

petitioner. In the said suit, respondent filed application

seeking for an order of temporary injunction against the

petitioner. In support of the said application respondent

filed an affidavit contending that the respondent is the

absolute owner and in lawful possession of residential

vacant site bearing No. 127 and Khatha No.1046 formed

in Sy.No.42/3 measuring East to West 60 feet and North

to South 40 feet. It is contended that earlier the said

site was owned and possessed by Smt.Muniyamma W/o

late Venkatagiriyappa and had acquired the said

property under the registered sale deed dated

15.02.1971. Subsequently, the said Smt.Muniyamma

had sold the property in favour of Sri.Ramaiah, S/o

Agarada Muniyappa under registered sale deed dated

10.05.1971. Pursuant to the sale deed Khatha was

transferred in the name of Sri.Ramaiah. The said

Ramaiah had applied for conversion of land. The same

was got converted from agricultural to non-agricultural

purpose vide conversion order dated 22.12.1992. The

said Ramaiah conveyed the property to one

Sri.C.Mahesh, S/o T.S.Chandrashekar under registered

sale deed dated 01.02.1995 and the said Sri.C.Mahesh

was put in possession of the same and he is in

possession of the suit schedule property as absolute

owner by virtue of registered sale deed. Therefore, the

petitioner taking undue advantage of the situation, is

trying to trespass into the suit schedule property.

Hence, the respondent has filed the application seeking

for an order of temporary injunction restraining the

petitioner from encroaching, fencing or in any way

obstructing the peaceful possession of the suit schedule

property till the disposal of suit. The petitioner

appeared and filed written statement and also memo to

adopt the written statement as objections to I.A.No.1.

It is contended that originally the land bearing

Sy.No.42/3 was owned by Dyavappa, Thammaiah and

Ramaiah, S/o late Lakshmaiah and they have acquired

the land by virtue of partition and they have sold the

said land measuring 25 guntas in favour of the mother

of petitioner namely Chikkathayamma under the

registered sale deed dated 01.10.1970. Since from the

date of execution of the registered sale deed

Chikkathayamma and her son are in possession and

enjoyment of the said land. In spite of the registered

sale deed executed by Sri.Ramaiah and others in favour

of the mother of petitioner, the wife and children of

Sri.Ramaiah namely Venkatalakshmamma @

Bodamaiah, Manjunath and Raju filed a suit against the

petitioner and his mother for the relief of declaration and

permanent injunction in respect of land bearing

Sy.No.42/3, measuring 32 guntas in O.S.No.2259/2007

on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru

Rural District, Bengaluru. The said suit was contested by

the petitioner and his mother by filing written statement

and the said suit came to be dismissed vide judgment

and decree dated 24.11.2009. The petitioner has filed a

suit for the relief of perpetual injunction against the

Venkatalakshmamma @ Bodamaiah and her sons in

O.S.No.1357/2007 on the file of First Additional Civil

Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

The said suit came to be decreed on 07.03.2008 and the

mother of the petitioner had executed a registered gift

deed in favour of the petitioner on 08.01.2007. There

was a mistake crept in while executing the gift deed, as

such the mother of the petitioner had also executed a

rectification deed dated 13.06.2007. It is contended

that the petitioner has invested huge money towards

development and putting up of construction in the

portion of property. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the

application I.A.No.1 filed by the respondent. The Trial

Court after hearing the parties, allowed the application

filed by respondent and directed both the parties to

maintain status-quo with respect to the suit schedule

property. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order on

I.A.No.1 passed by the Trial Court preferred the appeal

in M.A.No.22/2021 before the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The

Appellate Court vide order dated 30.07.2021 has

confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. The

petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned orders

passed by the Courts below, has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and

also learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the Courts below have not assigned any reasons in

passing the impugned orders. He further submits that

the Courts below have not considered the material

produced by the parties and also not considered the

contentions raised by the parties. He further submits

that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below

are cryptic and is passed without considering the

relevant aspects to grant an order of injunction in a suit.

He also further submits that the respondent has

suppressed the earlier proceedings. He further submits

that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule

property, and the petitioner has entered into a joint

development agreement and the petitioner is

undertaking construction and invested a huge amount.

All these facts have not been considered by the Courts

below while considering the prima facie case, balance of

convenience and irreparable loss. Hence, on these

grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent submits that the petitioner has not produced

any records to show that the petitioner is the owner of

the suit schedule property and further, she submits that

in the rectification deed it is mentioned that instead of

mentioning Sy.No.42/4 in the registered sale deed

executed in the year 1970, it has been mentioned as

Sy.No.42/3 and there is also discrepancy in the

measurement. Further, in the rectification deed it is

mentioned that it has to be treated as Sy.No.42/4 but

not as Sy.No.42/3. It is also further contended that in

the M.R., two survey numbers are mentioned i.e.,

Sy.No.42/3 and Sy.No.42/4, wherein in the registered

sale deed executed in the year 1970, only Sy.No.42/3 is

mentioned. The said M.R is not matching with the

schedule shown in the registered sale deed executed in

the year 1970. She further submits that the petitioner

is not sure about description of the property purchased

by the petitioner's mother. Hence, it is submitted that

the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned

orders. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss

the petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the respondent has

filed a suit for the relief of perpetual injunction claiming

to be the owner of the suit schedule property. The

petitioner also contended that the mother of the

petitioner has purchased the property bearing

Sy.No.42/3 in the year 1970 under the registered sale

deed. It is further contended that it is the case of the

respondent that the petitioner is trying to encroach upon

the property belonging to the respondent. He is also

making attempt to interfere with the possession of the

respondent. Further the parties have produced several

documents to show that they are the owners of the suit

property.

8. From the perusal of the order passed by the

Trial Court, the Trial Court has not considered the

documents produced by both the parties and also

contentions raised by both the parties. The Trial Court

merely has recorded a finding that only on the perusal of

the sale deed of the mother of the petitioner as well as

rectification deed, it reveals that there is a question

which requires a trial regarding the title of the petitioner

over Sy.No.42/4. There is no dispute in regard to

Sy.No.42/4. The dispute is only in regard to

Sy.No.42/3. The Trial Court, without examining the

documents produced by the parties, has proceeded to

pass the impugned orders. The Trial Court has not

applied its mind while passing impugned order and

further no reasons has been assigned in the impugned

order. The Appellate Court has confirmed the order

passed by the Trial Court, without applying its mind.

Thus, the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for

interference with the impugned orders.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned orders passed by the Courts below are set

aside. The Trial Court is directed to reconsider I.A.No.1

and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

However, both the parties are directed to maintain

status-quo with respect to the suit property till the

disposal of I.A.No.1 by the Trial Court. The Trial Court

is directed to dispose of I.A.No.1 within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

SD/-

JUDGE

GRD