Karnataka High Court
The Chairman vs Smt. Prameela Bai W/O Late ... on 23 September, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 100734 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100734 OF 2022
(CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
III AND IV FLOOR,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
III AND IV FLOOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
III AND IV FLOOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD BALLARI
5. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD BALLARI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PRAMEELA BAI
W/O. LATE LAKSHMAN ACHAR
-2-
MFA No. 100734 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O. GURURAJA NILAYA,
NEAR JYOTHI MEDICALS,
NEAR S.N. PET
UNDER BRIDGE
BEHIND ESHWARA TEMPLE
5TH CROSS, S.N. PET
BALLARI-583 102.
2. SMT. AISHWARAYA B.L.
D/O. LATE LAKSMAN ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS AND ALSO
W/O. SRI SRINIDHI KULKARNI
R/O. MADHVA ARCADE
4TH, 6TH CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 040.
3. SRI SREEPADA B.L.
S/O. LATE LAKSHMAN ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O. "GURURAJ NILAYA"
NEAR JYOTHI MEDICALS
NEAR S.N. PET
UNDER BRIDGE, BEHIND
ESHWARA TEMPLE, 5TH CROSS
S.N. PET, BALLARI-583 102.
4. SRI B. MADHVACHAR
S/O. LATE B. VENKATARAMANA ACHAR
C/O. B.M. KESHAVA DEEPAK
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O. SRI HARI HARA VENKATESHWARA
SADAN, 12-11-393/A/1, FLAT NO.301
BOUDHA NAGAR, WARASIGUDA
SECUNDARABAD-500 061.
5. SRI B. KRISHNAMURTHY ACHAR
S/O. LATE B. VENKATARAMANA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/O.H.NO.30/2, WARD NO.17
3RD CROSS, ANTHAPUR COLONY
S.N. PET, BALLARI-583 101.
-3-
MFA No. 100734 of 2022
6. SRI RAMAMURTHY
S/O. LATE B. VENKATARAMANA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O. AT DOOR NO.15/4
KALLAMMA STREET
BESIDE SONA COMPLEX
OPP. KALAMMA TEMPLE, BALLARI.
7. SRI GURURAJA
S/O. LATE B. VENKATARAMANA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O. AT DOOR NO.15/4
KALLAMMA STREET
BESIDE SONA COMPLEX
OPP. KALAMMA TEMPLE, BALLARI.
8. SRI B. BADRINATH
S/O. LATE B. VENKATARAMANA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O. DOOR NO.38, WARD NO.17
BESIDE VIJAYA MATERNITY HOME
2ND CROSS, S.N. PET, BALLARI
9. SRI B. JAYATHIRTHA ACHAR
S/O. LATE B. VENKATARAMANA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O. AT DOOR NO.15/4
KALLAMMA STREET
BESIDE SONA COMPLEX
OPP. KALAMMA TEMPLE, BALLARI.
10. SRI B. HARI PRASAD
S/O. LATE B. VENKATARAMANA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O. AT DOOR NO.15/4
KALLAMMA STREET
BESIDE SONA COMPLEX
OPP. KALAMMA TEMPLE, BALLARI.
11. SMT. RUKUMA BAI
D/O. LATE B. VENKATARAMANA ACHAR
AND ALSO W/O. SRI T. SREEDHAR RAO
-4-
MFA No. 100734 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O.GF-001, AJANTHA NEST APARTMENT
8TH CROSS, NANDAKUMAR LAYOUT
RAMANJANEYANAGAR, UTTARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 001.
12. SRI B. NARAYANACHAR
S/O. LATE B. NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O. SHRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA KRUPA
DOOR NO.1139, SMIORE COLONY
SANDUR-583 119.
13. SRI B. VAJIRAJENDRACHAR
S/O. LATE B. NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O.SHRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA NILAYA
PLOT NO.31, ANNAPURNA BADAVANE
NEAR MUNICIPAL COLLEGE
CHITWADGI, HOSAPETE-583 121.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJSHEKAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 TO R13 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(s) OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO, a. SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 07.10.2021 ON I.A.NO. I AND II IN O.S.NO.23/2021
ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BALLARI. b. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION OR
DECREE AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents.
MFA No. 100734 of 2022
2. This appeal is filed to set aside the order dated
07.10.2021 on I.A. Nos. I and II in O.S.23/2021 on the file
of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari restraining
the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and defendant No.15 from
alienating or creating any charge over the application
schedule properties.
3. The Trial Court, after considering the material
available on record, allowed both the applications and
directed the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and defendant No.15
not to alienate the suit schedule properties, till the
disposal of the suit. Hence, being aggrieved by the said
order, the present appeal is filed.
4. The main contention of the appellants before
this Court is that, already sale deed has been executed
and based on the said sale deed, the lands are already
improved forming sites and the Board is about to allot the
sites. It is also contended that, if the injunction order is
MFA No. 100734 of 2022
not vacated, the appellants would suffer irreparable loss
and injury. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
would submit that the Trial Court, while passing the order,
in detail discussed the material available on record and
particularly in Para No.14, observed that the Power of
Attorney as well as the Joint Development Agreement
have not been placed before the Court and the very
document of execution of power of attorney is disputed by
the plaintiffs. When such being the case, the Trial Court,
taking note of the material available on record, rightly
passed the order.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also
on perusal of the material available on record, the suit is
filed for the relief of partition and the plaintiffs have
claimed the relief of partition to grant their share in the
suit schedule properties.
MFA No. 100734 of 2022
7. The main contention of the plaintiffs before the
Trial Court is that, when the defendants are making hectic
efforts to alienate the properties and create third party
charge over the suit schedule properties, if the injunction
order is vacated, it would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs.
8. Having taken note of the said fact into
consideration and the appellants are claiming right, based
on the said sale deed and the sale deed is already
executed by the power of attorney holder, when the very
document of power of attorney dated 17.01.2018 is
disputed by the plaintiffs and the defendants have also not
produced the power of attorney and the joint development
agreement before the Court, in such circumstance, when
the property admittedly is a joint family property, if
injunction order is vacated, as contended by the learned
counsel for the appellants, it would cause prejudice to the
plaintiffs and it would also lead to multiplicity of
proceedings.
MFA No. 100734 of 2022
9. Hence, I am inclined to set aside the order
passed by the learned Trial Judge and the Trial Judge in
Para No.14, has discussed in detail with regard to the
material available on record. Therefore, no grounds are
made out to set aside the order passed on I.A. Nos. I and
II.
10. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants would submit that the suit is filed for
partition and the property is also ready for allotment and
nearly Rs.50 to 60 Crores of rupees have been invested
and if the matter is kept pending before the Court for a
long period, it may cause prejudice to the appellants and
hence, a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to
dispose of the matter as early as possible.
11. Having considered the fact that the suit is filed
for the relief of partition and that too, the defendants are
claiming right based on the sale deed, it is appropriate to
direct the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within six
months.
MFA No. 100734 of 2022
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed. However, the
Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
matter within six months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
(ii) Both the appellants, respondents and
their respective counsels are directed to
co-operate with the Trial Court to dispose
of the matter within the stipulated period
of six months.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
