Karnataka High Court
Smt Sonnamma vs Smt Rathnamma on 8 September, 2022
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.534 OF 2022 (CPC)
BETWEEN :
1. SMT.SONNAMMA
W/O LATE.VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS.
2. SRI.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE.VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
3. SRI.MUNI NANJEGOWDA
S/O LATE.VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
4. SRI.NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE.VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
5. SRI.KEMPEGOWDA
S/O LATE.VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT: JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 049.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VARADARAJAN.M.S., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SMT.RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE.VENKATAPPA
W/O VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT: KORATI, NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562122.
2. SMT.MUNITHAYAMMA
D/O LATE.VENKATAPPA
W/O SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT: BOMMAVARA, KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK
V.V.TOWER
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. SMT.GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE.VENKATAPPA
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
KUTHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562125.
5. SMT.NANJAMMA
D/O LATE.VENKATAPPA
W/O PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT: BATTARAHALLI VILLAGE
K.R.PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 049.
6. SMT.MANJULA
D/O LATE.VENKATAPPA
W/O KRISHNAMURTHY
3
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT: MANGAMMANAPALYA
BOMMANAHALLI POST
BEGUR HOBLI, HOSUR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.R.RAGHAVENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI.G.M.CHANDRASHEKAR., AGA FOR R3;
R2 - SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED:16.02.2022 NOTICE TO
R4 TO 6 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.M.S.Varadarajan., learned counsel for appellant
and Sri.N.R.Raghavendra., learned counsel for caveator/
respondent No.1 and Sri.G.M.Chandrashekar., learned
AGA for respondent No.3 have appeared in person.
Though the matter is listed today for admission,
with consent of counsel appearing for respective parties,
it is heard finally.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The facts are quite simple.
It is stated that on 12.02.2014, plaintiffs and
defendants 1 to 8 entered into an unregistered Partition
Deed, under which suit properties are allotted to the
share of the defendants 1 to 5 while plaintiffs 1 and 2
and defendants 6 and 8 have opted to receive money in
lieu of their share in the family properties. It is said that
monies are accordingly given to plaintiffs 1 and 2 and
defendants 6 and 8. Defendant No 7 is given a share in
the property itself.
On 18.08.2017 a Registered Partition Deed is
entered into amongst them on the same lines. Further
monies are paid to plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 6
and 8 through cheques. Even money is paid to the son
of the first plaintiff who has signed the registered
document as a witness.
On 12.12.2017 plaintiffs filed a suit for partition
and also filed an application i.e., I.A.No.3 for Temporary
Injunction, to restrain the Land Acquisition Officer -
defendant No.9 from disbursing the compensation
amount with respect to suit item No.10 (land bearing
Sy.No.112). The defendants 1 to 5 filed their statement
of objections. The Trial Court vide order
dated:08.12.2021 allowed the application and restrained
the Land Acquisition Officer, defendant No.9 from
disbursing the compensation amount to any person in
respect of land bearing Sy.No.112. It is this order which
is challenged in this appeal on several grounds as set
out in the Memorandum of Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellants and
respondent No.1 have urged several contentions.
5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of
respective parties and perused the appeal papers with
care.
Suffice it to note that it is not in dispute that
plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 8 are children of one
Venkatappa and defendant No.1 is the wife of
Venkatappa. The plaintiffs have initiated action and have
sought the relief of partition.
Sri.M.S.Varadarajan., learned counsel in
presenting his argument on behalf of appellants submits
that the order of the Trial Court required to be modified
for the simple reason that if at all plaintiffs succeed in
the suit, they would be entitled for 2/10th share in the
suit schedule properties. Hence, learned Judge has erred
in restraining the Land Acquisition Officer from
disbursing the entire amount.
I have considered the submission made on behalf
of appellants and I find considerable force in the said
submission.
It is not in dispute that the suit is one for partition
and if at all the suit is decreed, plaintiff's share would be
2/10th in the suit properties. Hence, in my view, learned
Judge has erred in restraining the Land Acquisition
Officer from disbursing the entire award amount to any
person in respect of land bearing Sy.No112 till the
disposal of the suit in entirety.
I may venture to say that the learned Judge has
failed to have regard to relevant considerations and
disregarded relevant matters.
Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed. The order dated:08.12.2021 passed by the
Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru
Rural District, Bengaluru on I.A.No.3 in
O.S.No.1708/2017 is modified directing the Land
Acquisition Officer to keep plaintiffs 2/10th share of the
compensation amount intact and disburse the rest of the
compensation amount in favor of appellants.
It is needless to observe that the Land Acquisition
Officer shall abide by the result of the partition suit in so
far as the remaining 2/10th share is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
