Karnataka High Court
Raghunandan Ramanna vs Vijayalakshmi Ramanna on 1 June, 2022
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3088/2022 (CPC)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NO. 8136/2022 (GM-CPC)
IN MFA NO.3088/2022
BETWEEN:
SHRI DEVANANDAN RAMANNA
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O LATE T.V.RAMANNA
R/T NO.114, NEW NOGH
K.R.ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARUN B M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. RAGHUNANDAN RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE T.V.RAMANNA
NOW R/AT FLAT NO.C-6,
SWAPNALOK NO.28,
AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD,
ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 042.
2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
W/O LATE T.V.RAMANA
R/AT NO. 114,
-2-
K.R.ROAD BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 26.03.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.37 IN
OS.NO. 7325/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND C/C XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, CCH-NO.28 AND 39
ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.37 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE
1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 94(e) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
IN WP NO. 8136/2022
BETWEEN :
RAGHUNANDAN RAMANNA
S/O LATE T.V. RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.114, NEW NO.24
K.R. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004.
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE AT
NO.28, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD,
C-6, SWAPNALOK, ULSOOR
BENGALURU - 560 042.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. VIJAYALAKSHMI RAMANNA
W/O LATE T.V. RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
-3-
2. DEVANANDAN RAMANNA
S/O LATE T.V. RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.114,
NEW NO. 24, K.R. ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.S. HEGDE FOR R1;
SRI. B.M. ARUN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2022 PASSED BY THE XXXVIII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-39) ON IA NO.34 IN OS NO.7325/2009,
GRANTING PERMISSION TO THE R-2 TO LEASE PORTION
OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE ITEM NO.1 PROPERTY
(PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A1) AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO DISMISS THE IA NO.34 BY THE R-2 UNDER
SECTION 151 OF CPC (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A2).
THIS APPEAL AND PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant in MFA No.3088/2022 is by the
second defendant in O.S. No.7325/2009 on the file of
the XIV Additional City Civil Judge who holds the
concurrent charge of XXXVIII Additional City Civil
Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court'], and the
writ petition in W.P. No.8136/2022 is by the plaintiff.
This litigation between the parties has a chequered
history, and they are not detailed herein because of the
present circumstances. The parties, for convenience,
are referred to as they are arrayed before the Civil
Court.
2. This Court has disposed of the earlier
proceedings in MFA No.8103/2010 with certain
directions and liberties. With the Order in MFA
No.8103/2010, the defendants, who are the mother and
brother of the plaintiff, are restrained from alienating or
mortgaging one of the suit schedule properties [the
subject property] during the pendency of the suit with
liberty to them to file an application for leave to induct
any third party tenant in the subject property or any
portion thereof. This Court has also directed the
respondents to deposit with the civil Court 5% of the
rentals received from the tenants of the subject property
while calling upon the civil Court to expedite the final
adjudication. After this Court's Order in MFA
No.8103/2010, an application is filed for modification of
the order, and this Court has disposed of such
application by Order dated 09.02.2020 directing the
civil Court to dispose of the second defendant's pending
application within a timeframe.
3. It is after this Court's Order dated
09.02.2020 on such application for modification, the
civil Court by Order dated 15.03.2020 has allowed the
second defendant's application [I.A. No.34] filed under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for
short, 'the CPC'] permitting the second defendant to
lease a portion of the subject property to the prospective
tenant identified by him. This order is challenged by
the plaintiff in the writ petition in WP No.8136/2020.
Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed an application [I.A.
No.37] for temporary injunction restraining the second
defendant from damaging or altering in any manner the
floor plan of the existing building in the subject
property. This application is allowed by the order dated
26.03.2022, and the appeal in MFA No.3088/2022 is
filed calling in question this order.
4. This Court on 05.05.2022 has granted
interim order permitting the second defendant to alter
the floor plan without damaging the structure in the
subject property. The second defendant, who had
commenced certain repair/refurbishing in the subject
property, has continued with such work. There is no
dispute that the second defendant has commenced
renovation/refurbishing work to accommodate the
interest of a tenant.
5. Sri. B.M. Arun, the learned counsel for the
second defendant and Sri. S. Sreevatsa, learned Senior
Counsel for the plaintiff, on the previous hearing dates,
after taking this Court through the circumstances
leading to the present appeal/petition, have submitted
in unison that both these proceedings could be disposed
of with the directions to the civil Court to expedite the
final decision in the suit in view of the specific and
unequivocal stand by the parties that they will assist
and co-operate with the civil Court for such disposal.
6. Sri. V.S. Hegde, the learned counsel who was
called upon to accept notice for the first defendant [the
mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant], joins
them in submitting that the appeal and the petition
could be disposed of accordingly. Further, in
continuation, it is now submitted that the parties will
complete their evidence before 30.10.2022 and the civil
Court could be called upon to finally dispose of the suit
on merits by 30.10.2023.
7. Insofar as the renovation/refurbishing by
the second defendant, the controversy is because the
second defendant has removed certain structure. The
plaintiff contends that the second respondent, in
violation of the orders of this Court, has removed a roof,
but the second respondent submits that he has not
removed the roof, the local authorities had sanctioned a
mezzanine floor and the length of this mezzanine floor is
reduced without damaging the beams or pillars in the
building. This alteration is at the tenant's request. The
second defendant relies upon a Certificate issued by the
Structural Engineer to say that the work undertaken by
him does not affect the structural integrity of the
building.
8. In fact, Sri. B.M. Arun, the learned counsel
for the second defendant is categorical that the second
defendant, who asserts absolute ownership of the
subject property, would not undertake any activity that
would affect the strength of the structure and he would
be accountable for all actionable consequences, if any,
because of the changes being affected.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, in
the context of the main dispute no further orders are
required on this because the renovation or refurbishing
work is not integral to such dispute and the fact that
the second defendant, who asserts that the safety of the
property is not in any manner compromised, is willing
to be liable for any actionable consequence. Further,
the parties are willing to lead evidence and close the
proceedings for final adjudication in a time bound
manner. For the foregoing, the following:
ORDER
The appeal and the petition stands
disposed of calling upon the parties to assist
and co-operate the XIV Additional City Civil
Judge, who holds the concurrent charge of
XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru, for completion of the trial in O.S.
No.7325/2009 by the end of 30.10.2022 and
for final adjudication on merits by
- 10 -
30.01.2023. The impugned orders shall
stand modified in the light of these Courts'
observations because of the subsequent
events.
It is needless to observe that the
submissions on behalf of the second
defendant are taken on record.
SD/-
JUDGE
AN/-
