Karnataka High Court
Smt. Dr.L Chandramma vs Smt. M. Lakshmamma on 8 June, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 5358 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5358 OF 2022 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DR. L. CHANDRAMMA
W/O. LATE K.M. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
2. SRI NITHIN V. LAKSHMISHA
S/O. LATE K.M. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT NO.36, LAKSHMISHA NILAYA,
3RD MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 071.
3. SMT. R. VIJAYA
W/O. LATE K.M. RAJKUMAR,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. SMT. K.R. INDUMATHI
D/O. LATE K.M. RAJKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
5. SRI K.R. SIDDARTH @ SUNIL
S/O. LATE K.M. RAJKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
6. SMT. K.R. VINUTHA
D/O. LATE K.M. RAJKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
-2-
MFA No. 5358 of 2022
APPELLANT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE
R/AT NO.7, 1ST CROSS, TANK ROAD,
NEAR NEW POLICE STATION,
KRISHNARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 036.
7. SRI M.B. BABUKRISHNA DEVARAYA
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
(MOTHER SMT. AKKAYYAMMA)
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.199, 19TH BLOCK,
ARKAVATHI LAYOUT,
BEHIND ROYAL CONCORT
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,
CHALAKERE, KALYANA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043.
8. SRI M.B. BABU VIJAY SIMHA
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
(MOTHER SMT. AKKAYYAMMA)
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.285, 21ST CROSS,
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA,
BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD,
GAYATHRI LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM
BENGALURU-560 036.
9. SRI M.B. BABU THIRUMALA APPANNA
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
(MOTHER SMT. AKKAYYAMMA)
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13, 4TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK
PRAKRUTHI TOWNSHIP
NEAR LOGOS CHURCH, BABUSA PALYA
(HORAMAVU AGRAHARA)
KALYANA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043.
10. SRI ERASA
S/O. LATE MUNIPATHA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT NO.109, AADUR VILLAGE,
-3-
MFA No. 5358 of 2022
VIRGONAGAR POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 049.
11. SRI RAVI D.
S/O. DODDAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.405, VEERABHADRASWAMY,
TEMPLE ROAD, KALKERE,
BENGALURU-560 043.
12. SRI RAVIKUMAR K.,
S/O. KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.149,
OLD FLOUR MILL STREET,
HORAMAVU POST, KALKERE,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
WARD NO.26,
BENGALURU-560 043.
13. SRI VENKATESH
S/O. JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.32/2, AADUR VILLAGE,
VIRGONAGAR POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 049.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. LOKESH BABU M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. M. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. M. KRISHNAPPA,
D/O. LATE R. MYSOORAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2881,
2ND MAIN ROAD, H.A.L. 2ND STAGE,
-4-
MFA No. 5358 of 2022
80 FEET ROAD, KODIHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHANKAR G., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) R/W. SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 04.07.2022 PASSED ON IA
NO.1 IN O.S.NO.6034/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY, (CCH-40), ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1
AND 2 R/W. SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed against the order dated
04.07.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6034/2021 on the file
of the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City allowing the application filed under Order
XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C, wherein
the Trial Court has restrained the defendants from alienating
the suit schedule properties in any manner whatsoever till the
final disposal of the suit.
MFA No. 5358 of 2022
3. While considering the application, the Trial Court
has also taken note of the pleadings of the defendants and the
defendants in their pleadings in the written statement
categorically contend that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule
properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 to 9. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that, when there is an admission on the part of the
defendants that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule
properties belongs to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9 and
the status Smt. Akkayyamma as daughter of late
Sri Mysoorappa and Smt. Muniyamma is denied by the plaintiff,
it is only after full fledged trial of the suit, the quantum of share
of the plaintiff in item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule
properties can be ascertained. Hence, the Trial Court comes to
the conclusion that the same is suffice at this stage to hold that
the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are joint
family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9,
including other three sisters of defendant Nos.7 to 9.
Therefore, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is
a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff to restrain the
defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties.
MFA No. 5358 of 2022
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently contend that, though claim is made in respect of
the 6 acres of land in the plaint, the available property is only 2
acres, 6 guntas. Hence, order passed by the Trial Court
restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule
properties is erroneous and the said submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted since, the
defendants themselves in the written statement categorically
admitted that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties
are joint family properties and whether the total extent of 6
acres is available or 2 acres, 6 guntas is available, as
contended by the appellants is a matter of trial.
5. When prima facie, there is an admission on the part
of the defendants in the written statement that item Nos.1 and
2 of the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and
relief is also sought in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit
schedule properties, the Trial Court has not committed any
error in passing the order restraining the defendants from
alienating the suit schedule properties in any manner
MFA No. 5358 of 2022
whatsoever till the disposal of the suit. Hence, I do not find
any merit in the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
