Karnataka High Court
Sri P M Anjinappa vs Sri Gangappa on 14 December, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.14655/2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI P M ANJINAPPA
S/O MUNIRAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT POOJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.R. PRASANNA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI GANGAPPA
S/O.LATE DODDA THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by A 2. SRI CHIKKANAJINAPPA
K S/O. LATE DODDA THIMMAIAH,
CHANDRIKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH 3. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O KADIRAPPA,
COURT OF D/O LATE DODA THIMMAIAH,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
RACHOLAMODAGU VILLAGE,
TABAGURIO POST,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-562110.
2
F B N KOLASA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
4. FETRIC KOLASA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
5. RONALD KILASA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
6. JANE ROBART, AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
ALL ARE R/AT SADAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
ALIHOOD TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
7. SRI K N UMESH
S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/A POOJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3
R4 TO R7 - NOTICE D/W V/O DT:14.12.2020)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
16.10.2020 IN NO.M.A.NO.15106/2019 ON THE FILE OF V ADDL.
DISTRICT SESSION JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, VIDE ANNX-H CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED
12.11.2019 IN O.S.NO. 352/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI VIDE ANNX-F AND TO DISMISS
THE UNNUMBERED APPLICATION FILED BY THE R-1 TO 3.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 27/11/2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner, defendant No.2 in O.S.No.352/2008
on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Devanahalli and appellant in M.A.No.15106/2019 on the
file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District, is before this
Court challenging the order dated 12.11.2019 on I.A.
filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') and judgment
dated 16.10.2020 confirming the order dated
12.11.2019.
2. Heard Sri. B.R.Prasanna, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri. V.Shivakumar, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the writ petition
papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri. B.R.Prasanna would submit that the suit of the
respondents/plaintiffs is to declare that plaintiffs are
absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties and
consequently to declare that the sale deed executed in
favour of defendant No.1 dated 19.08.2004 in respect of
schedule item No.1 property is not binding and for
several other reliefs including declaration that alleged
right claimed by defendant No.2 in respect of land in
Sy.No.43 insofar as 0.30 guntas based on the Land
Tribunal order and so also Land Tribunal order made in
favour of K.Krishnappa in respect of land in Sy.No.25
would be a nullity. Along with the suit, the
respondents/plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.1 under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, praying for an ad-interim
order of injunction against the petitioner-defendant from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties, but no
order was passed on the said application.
4. Learned counsel would further submit that
the trial Court committed an error in granting ad-interim
order under impugned order dated 12.11.2019 since the
respondents/plaintiffs have not made out prima-facie
case and balance of convenience is not in their favour.
Learned counsel further submits that unless one makes
out prima-facie case, no injunction could be granted.
Injunction is an equitable relief and discretion shall have
to be exercised in a proper manner. Learned counsel at
the first instance submits that the suit itself is not
maintainable and respondents/plaintiffs could not have
made prayer that the Land Tribunal order is void and
nullity. The suit challenging the order of Land Tribunal is
barred. Hence, the trial Court failed to take note of the
same. Further, it is submitted that defendant No.2 is in
possession of the land in question by virtue of order of
the Land Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel Sri. Prasanna would further
submit that the suit is of the year 2008 and I.A. filed
along with the suit is pending, without pressing the said
I.A., after more than 10 years, on 27.08.2019, the
respondents/plaintiffs filed one more I.A. under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, alleging interference. The
trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiffs
without proceeding with the suit, have deliberately filed
present application. It is submitted that no fresh cause
of action is made out to grant an order of injunction.
Thus, the trial Court committed an error in granting
order of injunction.
6. Further, learned counsel would submit that
the Appellate Court also failed to examine as to whether
one of the prayers of the respondents/plaintiffs is
maintainable in respect of challenge to Land Tribunal
order and the Appellate Court also failed to examine as
to when there was no interim order for more than 10
years, whether the respondents/plaintiffs have made out
a case in I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
CPC on 27.08.2019. It is submitted that the Appellate
Court failed to appreciate the fact that maintainability of
the suit is also to be considered while considering
equitable relief of injunction. Thus, he prays for allowing
the writ petition.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents-plaintiffs would support the order passed
by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. It is
submitted that the trial Court under impugned order,
directed both the parties to maintain status-quo and it
would not prejudice or harm any of the parties to the
suit. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
would further submit that application under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was made on 27.08.2019 on
noticing that defendant No.2, petitioner herein
commenced construction over the suit schedule item
No.2 of the property, which is in possession of the
plaintiffs. It is further submitted that land in question
was granted to the father of the plaintiffs in the year
1964 under Inam Abolition Act, 1954 and hence, the
question of grant of land by the Land Tribunal as
claimed by defendant No.2 would not arise. Thus, it is
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. On hearing learned counsels and on perusal
of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that no
ground is made out to interfere with the order directing
the parties to maintain status-quo. Moreover, normally
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the
Courts below unless an exceptional ground is made out.
Both the Courts below have noted that the plaintiffs
made out a prima-facie case and have held that they are
entitled to equitable relief.
9. The suit of the respondents-plaintiffs consists
of multiple prayers of declaration, ownership as well as
sale deed alleged to be executed by defendant No.1.
The plaintiffs claim item No.2 of the suit schedule
property, which is the subject matter of present petition,
by grant under Inam Abolition in Case No.23/59-60
dated 08.07.1964, whereas defendant No.2 claims
through the Land Tribunal order in respect of the same
land. Based on the material on record, the trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court have come to the conclusion
that the respondents-plaintiffs are in lawful possession.
Hence, both the Courts have held that balance of
convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit is of
the year 2008. Therefore, it would be appropriate for
the parties to get the suit disposed of early.
10. The trial Court has also found that since item
No.2 of property is agricultural property, no construction
could be put up on agricultural land. The prayer in
respect of Land Tribunal order, whether the suit is
maintainable or not, is a matter for trial and petitioner
could request the trial Court to frame appropriate issue
in that regard if issue is not framed in that regard. The
Appellate Court also on the basis of the grant order in
favour of the father of the plaintiffs and other
documents on record, affirmed the order passed by the
trial Court. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere
with the impugned orders. Accordingly, writ petition
stands dismissed.
11. Since the suit is of the year 2008, the trial
Court shall endeavor for early disposal of the suit, not
later than nine months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMJ
CT:bms
