Karnataka High Court
Ninganagouda Hosamini @ Polis ... vs Basavaraja Malagatti on 31 July, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26624
MFA No. 7050 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7050 OF 2014 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
NINGANAGOUDA HOSAMINI @ POLIS PATIL
S/O ADIVEPPA GOUDA POLIS PATIL
A/A 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.15, 1ST CROSS,10TH A MAIN
INDIRANAGAR, 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560 038.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAVARAJA MALAGATTI
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
EXCISE & LOTTERIES
MSIL HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
Digitally signed by
DHANALAKSHMI BANGALORE-560 052.
MURTHY
Location: High 2. S.M. LAVA
Court of S/O SHANTAPPA
Karnataka R/AT NO.9, 13TH CROSS
GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.
3. GOUDAPPA BASAPPA BAGEWADI
AT C-1/2. SBI OFFICERS COLONY
MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 038.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26624
MFA No. 7050 of 2014
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43, RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:21.8.2014 PASSED ON IA NO.1
IN O.S.NO.8267/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE C.C.27TH
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-5, BANGALORE, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED
U/O 39, RULES 1 & 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff in
O.S.No.8267/2013 before the XXVII Addl. City Civil
Judge, Bangalore City challenging the order dated
21.8.2014 passed on application i.e., I.A.No.I filed by
the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of CPC whereby the Trial Court has
dismissed the application.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is that he is
the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.11
NC: 2023:KHC:26624
MFA No. 7050 of 2014
measuring 1 acre 28 guntas situated in Kodigehalli
Village. He has purchased the said land from his
previous owner through a registered sale deed dated
10.8.1983. Pursuant to the same, his name is entered
in the revenue records. He has formed the layout and
sold some of the sites to different persons and they
have constructed building in the sites. He has retained
site Nos.23, 24 and 25 measuring about 5000 sqft. and
he is in possession of the said sites. The land in
Sy.No.11 was notified for acquisition by the Government
for NTI House Building Co-operative Society in the year
1985. Even though the said land has been acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act, so far, the possession
has not been taken by the Government and till date, he
is in possession of the same. Since the defendants were
obstructing to his peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed the suit for
the relief of perpetual injunction and along with the suit,
NC: 2023:KHC:26624
MFA No. 7050 of 2014
he has filed I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of
CPC for grant of an order of temporary injunction.
appeared through counsel and filed written statement as
objections to I.A. and contended that the land has been
acquired by the Government for the benefit of NTI
House Building Co-operative Society and after taking
possession by the Government, the possession has been
handed over to the Society. Thereafter, the Society has
formed layout and sold sites to different persons and
sold site Nos.707 and 708 to defendant Nos.2 and 3.
From the date of allotment of sites, they are in
possession of the suit schedule property.
5. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the trial
court by order dated 21.8.2014 has dismissed the
application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1
and 2. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has
preferred this appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:26624
MFA No. 7050 of 2014
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has
contended that the suit schedule property is part of
Sy.No.11, Kodigehalli Village, Bangalore. The plaintiff
has purchased the same from his previous owner
through registered sale deed 10.8.1983. Plaintiff has
formed layout and sold sites to different persons and he
has retained Sites Nos.23, 24 and 25. Even though as
claimed by the defendants, the land in Sy.No.11 has
been acquired by the Government under the Land
Acquisition Act, so far, no possession has been taken.
Till date, the plaintiff is in possession of the said land.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents-
defendants has contended that the Government has
acquired the land and taken the possession and handed
over the possession to NTI House Building Co-operative
Society. The Society inturn has formed layout and sold
NC: 2023:KHC:26624
MFA No. 7050 of 2014
site Nos.707 and 708 to defendant Nos.2 and 3 and
other sites to different persons. Till today, the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 are in possession of their sites. He further
contended that the plaintiff in earlier round of litigation
had challenged the acquisition proceedings before this
Court in writ petition and he was unsuccessful.
Thereafter, he has challenged the order passed in Writ
Petition by filing Writ Appeal before this Court and
thereafter by filing SLP before the Supreme Court. The
order passed by this Court in writ petition has been
confirmed by the Supreme Court. After being
unsuccessful in challenging the acquisition proceedings,
he has filed the suit for injunction and along with the
suit, he has filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and
2 of CPC. The Trial Court after hearing the parties has
rightly rejected the application. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:26624
MFA No. 7050 of 2014
9. Be that as it may, the suit schedule property is a
vacant land. The plaintiff has filed the suit for bare
injunction and he has filed I.A.No.1 under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The Trial Court by order dated
21.8.2014 has dismissed the application. By challenging
the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. This Court
on 21.1.2015 has passed the following order:
'Counsel for respondent absent.
Admit.
Call for records.
Post the case for final hearing on 11.2.2015.
Parties to maintain the same state of things as it
exists today till the disposal of the appeal, in any
manner."
10. Under the circumstances and in the interest of
justice, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court may be
directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as
possible and direct the parties to maintain status-quo in
respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of
the suit.
NC: 2023:KHC:26624
MFA No. 7050 of 2014
11. Hence, I pass the following the order:
a) The appeal is allowed.
b) The impugned order dated 21.8.2014 passed
by the trial court on I.A.No.1 filed under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in
O.S.No.8267/2013, is modified.
c) Parties are directed to maintain status-quo in
respect of the suit schedule property till the
disposal of the suit.
d) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
suit in accordance with law within six months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
e) Parties are directed to co-operate for the
early disposal of the suit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
