Mr Manjunatha S vs Mr R P M Subramanyam
2022 Latest Caselaw 3870 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 07 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

            MFA NO.3644 OF 2021 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

Mr. Manjunatha S.,
S/o Late N.Shivappa Naik,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at 306, Krishna Geetha Ap artments,
Basava Samithi Layout,
Vid hyaranyap ura,
Beng aluru-560097.
                                             ...Appellant
(By Sri Chandranath Arig a K., Advocate)

AND:

1.   Mr. R.P.M.Sub ramanyam,
     S/o R.P.Muniswamapp a,
     Aged about 66 years,
     No.45, 19 t h Main,
     12 t h Cross, J.P.Nag ar,
     2 n d Phase, Beng aluru-560078.

2.   Mr. Deepak B.K.,
     S/o Late Krishnamurthy B.G.,
     Aged about 36 years,
     No.529, 10 t h Cross,
     13 t h Main, Padmanabhanagar,
     Beng aluru-560017.
                                           ...Respondents
(By Sri R.Shyama, Advocate for R1;
 R2 - served)
                                     :: 2 ::


     This MFA is filed und er Ord er 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC
1908, against the order d ated 12.03.2021 passed on
I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.3811/2019 on the file of the XXIV
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Beng aluru
City (CCH-6), rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.

     This MFA coming on for admission this d ay, the
Court delivered the following:


                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in

O.S.No.3811/2019 on the file of XXIV Addl. City

Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-6, Bengaluru. The

plaintiff's suit is for permanent injunction in

respect of property bearing site No.64, Khata

No.364, earlier Doddabettahalli Village Panchayat,

earlier part of Sy.No.20, Chikkabettahalli village,

Yelahanka, Bengaluru North Taluk and now

situated within the limits of BBMP. The plaintiff

claims to have purchased this property from one

M/s. Venkadari Estates and Developers Pvt., Ltd.

It is stated that the sale deed in his favour was

executed and registered on 25.3.2010. He claims :: 3 ::

to have obtained khata to his name and paid taxes

regularly. He complains of illegal interference by

the defendants.

2. On the other hand, the first defendant

contended that 9 acres 20 guntas of land in

Sy.No.20 of Chikkabettahalli Village belonged to

one Abdul Karim Sab. He entered into an

agreement of sale with M/s The Agarbatti Workers

House Building Co-operative Society. One

Reddappachetty was the President of the Society.

On 20.05.1989, Abdul Karim Sab executed power

of attorney in favour of Reddappachetty. Then on

9.12.1991, Abdul Karim Sab and his family

members executed another agreement of sale in

favour of the Society and not in favour of

Reddappachetty personally. Before that Abdul

Karim Sab had obtained conversion of the land

from agricultural to residential, purposes. After

the death of Abdul Karim Sab, his heirs and :: 4 ::

brothers succeeded to the ownership of entire

Sy.No.20. They never sold the property to

Reddappachetty. On 9.1.1996, the said Society

and Reddappachetty filed the suit

O.S.No.243/1996 seeking injunction and it was

dismissed for default on 18.2.1997. Then the

Society and Reddappachetty filed miscellaneous

petition seeking restoration of the suit and it was

also dismissed. Therefore the heirs of Abdul Karim

Sab and his brothers jointly sold entire land in

Sy.No.20 to one M.Mohan Raju by executing three

sale deeds. M. Mohan Raju having thus become

the owner of the land, took over possession, and

then formed the layout and sold one such site to

the defendant. Thus the first defendant contended

that the documents that the plaintiff relied upon

are not at all correct and are bogus.

Reddappachetty was never the owner of the

property. The land did not belong to

M/s.Venkadari Estates Developers Pvt. Ltd.

:: 5 ::

3. I have heard Sri. Chandranath Ariga K.,

counsel for the appellant and Sri. R. Shyama,

counsel for respondent no.1.

4. If the impugned order is perused, it

appears that the trial court has proceeded to trace

the title of the plaintiff and also of the defendant.

It has not applied its mind to ascertain as to who

was in possession of the suit property on the date

of suit. In a suit for injunction, possession plays

an important role rather than title. Though it is

not disputed that the suit property is surrounded

by a compound wall, the person who constructed

the compound wall is disputed. This is a fit case to

be remanded for disposal of application for

temporary injunction afresh, but the appellant and

the respondents have agreed for maintaining

vacant nature of the property till disposal of the

suit. Therefore appeal is disposed of with a

direction to the plaintiff as also the :: 6 ::

defendants to maintain vacant nature of the suit

property till the suit is disposed of on merits by

the trial court.

The trial court may consider for early disposal

of the suit subject to cooperation by the parties.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd