Karnataka High Court
Ramya S vs Mangalore Teachers Co Operative Credit ... on 18 December, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46420
WP No. 980 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 980 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.RAMYA S, AGED 35 YEARS,
W/O PRAKASH HEBBAR,
R/AT SRI DURGA KRIPA,
CHANDE, HERADI VILLAGE,
BRAHMAVARA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 210.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANGALORE TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE
CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER,
HAVING OFFICE AT MAXIMUM BUILDING,
LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,
MANGALURU - 575 001.
Digitally signed
by SUCHITRA 2. MANGALORE TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE
MJ
Location: High CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., BRAHMAVARA BRANCH,
Court of
Karnataka REP: BY ITS MANAGER,
HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT
ST.ANTHONY, ANTHONY PRESS POINT,
BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 213.
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND
SALE OFFICER, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 576 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE FOR
R1 AND R2; SRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46420
WP No. 980 of 2022
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 30.10.2021 IN M.A.NO.18/2021 (O.S.NO.434/2021) ON THE
FILE OF 2ND ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC UDUPI MARKED
AS ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent
of both the parties, the same is taken for final disposal.
2. The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.434/2021 is
before this Court, aggrieved by judgment dated 30.10.2021
in M.A.No.18/2021, setting aside the order dated 10.08.2021
on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.434/2021 passed by the II Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi.
3. Heard Sri. B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. Ravishankar Shastry.G., learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.3. Perused the writ
petition papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff is one for declaration
NC: 2023:KHC:46420
of attachment and sale notice issued by defendant No.3 in
respect of auction sale of the schedule property is void,
illegal and non-est. Learned counsel would further submit
that the trial Court allowed I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short
'CPC') and restrained the defendants from conducting public
auction or sale of the suit schedule property and the
Appellate Court under judgment dated 30.10.2021 in
M.A.No.18/2021 set aside the order passed by the trial Court
granting temporary injunction. Learned counsel further
submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the prima-
facie case made out by the petitioner-plaintiff and the
reasoning on which the trial Court granted injunction order.
Learned counsel taking through the order of the Appellate
Court would submit that the Appellate Court proceeded only
on the ground that defendant Nos.1 and 2 being public
institution dealing with public money and temporary
injunction granted by the trial Court would be come in the
way for recovering public money. Further, it is the contention
of the petitioner-plaintiff that the petitioner has become
NC: 2023:KHC:46420
owner of the suit schedule property under settlement deed
dated 01.06.2016.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Ravishankar
Shastry.G., for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that
the petitioner-plaintiff has no manner of title and interest
over the suit schedule property. The petitioner's husband
executes settlement deed in favour of his wife to defraud the
recovery proceedings.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff would
submit that the settlement deed was executed on
01.06.2016, whereas the recovery proceedings is initiated on
23.06.2017 and award was passed on 17.07.2017. Thus, he
submits that allegation of defraud is wholly baseless. This
Court while issuing notice to the respondents, by order dated
14.03.2022 directed both the parties to maintain status-quo.
7. Whether the suit schedule property is liable to be
brought to sale for recovery of loan obtained by the husband
of the petitioner or whether the petitioner had become owner
of the property or whether it is legally acquired property of
NC: 2023:KHC:46420
the petitioner, is a matter for trial. Therefore, in that view of
the matter, it would be appropriate for the parties to
maintain status-quo as ordered by this Court on 14.03.2022.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The parties to the suit are directed to
maintain status-quo in all aspects in
O.S.No.434/2021 on the file of the II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi.
(ii) The trial Court shall endeavor for speedy
disposal of the suit with the cooperation of
the parties as well as their learned counsels.
(iii) With the above, writ petition stands disposed
off.
(iv) I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for
consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMJ
