Sri M G Ramamurthy vs Sri Kuldeep
2022 Latest Caselaw 5103 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 21 S T DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

            MFA NO.4249 OF 2020 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

Sri M.G. Ramamurthy
S/o Late Gopalap pa
Aged about 39 years
R/at Manduru Villag e
Bid arahalli, East Taluk
Beng aluru Urb an District.              ...Appellant

(By Sri L.M. Ramaiah Gowd a, Advocate)

AND:

1. Sri Kuld eep
   S/o Late A.V. Sureshbabu Naidu
   Aged about 39 years

2. Sri Bangaru
   S/o Late A.V. Sureshbabu Naidu
   Aged about 37 years

Both are residing at
Lakshmishree
Opposite to St.
Philomeana's School
Dodd a Bommasandra
Vid yaranyapura Post
Beng aluru-560097.                    ...Respond ents

(By Sri A.P. Pulakeshi, Advocate)
                              :: 2 ::


     This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of
CPC, against the order d ated 17.01.2020 p assed on
I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.8447/2019 on the file of the LIX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Beng aluru
CCH-60, d ismissing the I.A.No.1 filed under order 39
rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC.

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

                        JUDGMENT

Heard Sri L.M.Ramaiah Gowda, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri A.P.Pulakeshi,

learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff

questioning the order dated 17.01.2020. His

application for temporary injunction was dismissed

by the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff's suit is for permanent

injunction in respect of 6 guntas of land in

Sy.No.3/5 of Thindlu village, Yalahanka Hobli,

Bengaluru North Taluk. The plaintiff is the

purchaser of the said property. On the other :: 3 ::

hand, the defendants claim interest and

possession over the property by virtue of an

agreement of sale dated 18.06.1997. In the

impugned order, there is a finding that the

appellant appears to be having title over the suit

property, but not the possession. The Trial Court

has also held that when the agreement dated

18.06.1997 came in to existence, possession was

handed over to the purchaser according to Section

53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act.

4. The argument of Sri L.M.Ramaiah Gowda

is that the agreement dated 18.06.1997 was

insufficiently stamped and such an agreement

cannot be looked into for any purpose. Therefore

the trial Court could not have dismissed the

plaintiff's application for temporary injunction

inferring possession being with the defendants

based on the agreement.

:: 4 ::

5. The submission made by Sri L.M.Ramaiah

Gowda is according to the provisions of the Stamp

Act. It appears that the entire suit property is

vacant and it has been compounded. Both side

Advocates submit that the trial has already

commenced and the case is now posted for further

cross examination of plaintiff's witness. In this

view, the plaintiff and the defendants are directed

to maintain vacant nature of the property till

disposal of the suit on merits. No party is entitled

to develop the property till disposal of the suit.

The observations made in this order shall not come

in the way of disposal of the suit on merits.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

IA No.1/2020 does not survive for

consideration. It stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-