Karnataka High Court
Shrigopal S/O Laxminarayan Kasat vs Five Star Industres @ Industries on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Anant Ramanath Byarhj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9470
MFA No. 100877 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100877 OF 2019 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRIGOPAL S/O LAXMINARAYAN KASAT
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
2. KISHOR S/O NARAYANDAS KASAT
AGE 24 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
3. SHRAVANAKUMAR S/O VINODAKUMAR KASAT
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
4. KAPIL S/O VIJAYAKUMAR KASAT
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
ALL ARE R/O: HOUSE NO.37,
MARAWADI GALLI, BAGALKOT,
TQ: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally
signed by
VIJAYALAXMI
VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT
M BHAT Date:
2023.08.30
14:54:01
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
+0530
AND:
1. FIVE STAR INDUSTRES @ INDUSTRIES
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY BY NAME
ABDULAZIZ S/O IBRAHIMSAHEB CONTRACTOR
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: T.P.NO.5A, WARD NO.10,
NEEAR SHIRUR RAILWAY GATE,
BAGALKOT, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. LAXMAN S/O CHANABASAPPA MUCHAKHANDI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9470
MFA No. 100877 of 2019
R/O: MAHAVEER ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION
BAGALKOT, TQ: BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. LALITA W/O GOVINDARAO @ GOVIND DESAI
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER,
ADD: FLAT NO.20, SUKHAWANI PART-5,
PLOT NO. 39 AND 40, NEAR MASULKAR COLONY,
PIMPRI PUNE-411018,
STATE OF MAHARASTRA.
4. SMT. LAXMI W/O NARASINHA HUNAGUND
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
FLAT NO. 301, SA3, RUPAL HOUSING SOCIETY,
AJMERA COMPLEX, PIMPRI PUNE-411018,
STATE OF MAHARASTRA.
5. RAVI S/O GOVINDARAO @ GOVIND DESAI
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
ADD: FLAT NO.D-MART, SATARA ROAD,
PUNE, STATE OF MAHARSHTRA.
6. SUDHEER GOVINDARAO @ GOVIND DESAI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
ADD: FLAT NO.20, SUKHAWANI PART-5,
PLOT NO.39 AND 40, NEAR MASULKAR COLONY
PIMPRI PUNE-411018,
STATE OF MAHARASTRA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AHAMED ALI J RAHIMANSHA, FOR C/R1-ABSENT;
SRI. S.A.SONDUR, FOR R2-ABSENT, ADVOCATES;
R3, R4, R6-NOTICE SERVED;
R5-HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED:13.02.2019, PASSED IN O.S.NO.21/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAGALKOT, ALLOWING
THE IA NO.1 FILED U/O. 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9470
MFA No. 100877 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Mruthyunjaya S.Hallikeri, the learned
counsel for the appellants.
2. The defendants no.1 to 4 in OS.no21/2008 are the
appellants. The defendants 1 to 4 are aggrieved by the
order of temporary injunction granted in the
aforementioned suit, wherein the Court has restrained the
defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with the plaintiff's
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property till the disposal of the suit.
3. The brief facts.
The suit schedule property according to the
appellants is purchased by the appellants under
registered sale deed dated 22.03.2017. It is the further
case that their vendor had purchased the property in
the year 2012.
The plaintiff has filed the suit on the premise that the
sale deed in favour of appellants is null and void and
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9470
MFA No. 100877 of 2019
the plaintiff is in possession of the property. The
plaintiff is claiming right and possession over the
property under the deed executed by Mehaboobi.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that one Sangappa S/o Basalingappa Shattar
was the tenant of the property for 99 years and
Sangappa S/o Basalingappa Shattar has sold the
tenancy in favour of Mehaboobi and Mehaboobi has
transferred her right in favour of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has filed the suit on the premise that
Mehaboobi was the owner of the property and being the
owner, she has transferred the property to the plaintiff.
Sri. Mruthyunjaya S.Hallikeri, learned counsel would
submit that Mehaboobi was not the owner of the
property. She is only a lessee having purchased the
leasehold right under previous lessee, could not have
transferred the ownership to the plaintiff.
He further submits that since Mehaboobi has sold the
property on the assumption that she is the owner of the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9470
MFA No. 100877 of 2019
property, Mehaboobi's tenancy is forfeited and the
plaintiff did not acquire any tenancy and possession
over the property. He would further submit that the
recital in the sale deed in favour of defendants no.1 to
4-appellants, reveals that the appellants are in
possession of the property under the registered sale
deed of 2017. Thus he would urged that the trial court
could not have granted an injunction order which is
impugned in this appeal.
4. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents
despite service of notice.
5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar.
6. Though Sri. Mruthyunjaya S.Hallikeri, would contend
that he is in possession of the property, the admitted fact
would reveal that there was a registered lease deed for a
period of 99 years in favour of Sangappa S/o Basalingappa
and said 99 years lease was executed in the year 1921.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the lessee has
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9470
MFA No. 100877 of 2019
transferred the possession to the owner of the property.
This is a matter to be considered at the time of trial.
Nothing is placed on record to show that the original
lessee has transferred the possession to the appellant or
appellant's vendor.
7. The suit property is said to be a vacant site. The
learned counsel for the appellants further submits that this
Court has granted an order of status quo as there was a
threat of construction in the property by the plaintiff-
respondent. The order of status quo is in force since last 4
years. The 99 years lease has come to an end in 2021.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the question as to who is in possession of the
property has to be determined after the full fledged trial.
Hence, this Court is of the view that interest of justice
would be met in case both the parties are restrained from
putting up any structure in the suit property. This order
shall be in force till the disposal of the suit.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9470
MFA No. 100877 of 2019
9. The trial Court shall decide the claim of respective
parties without being influenced by any of the
observations made in this appeal, as this Court has not
expressed anything on the merits of the matter.
Accordingly, Appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VMB
..
