Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rajanna. C vs Smt. Lakshmamma on 19 June, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:21085
MFA No. 1997 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1997 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAJANNA. C,
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
2. SRI MANJUNATHA. C,
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O
INDARASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HEGGANHALLI POST, KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T (BY SRI SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. SMT. PILLAMMA,
W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O INDARASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HEGGANHALLI POST, KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:21085
MFA No. 1997 of 2023
3. SRI SHIVANNA C,
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
4. SMT PRAMILA,
W/O SHIVANNA C,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
5. MASTER KUSHAL,
S/O SHIVANNA C,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
6. KUM. POORVIKA,
D/O SHIVANNA C,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.
R3 TO R6 ARE R/AT NO.245,
BASAVESHWARA NILAYA,
PRASHANTH NAGAR, DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURJ RURAL DISTRICT 562110.
7. M/S PRAKRUTI NEST,
PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.11/34,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560020.
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI N. BALAKRISHNA.
8. SRI ANIL KAPOOR,
S/O BIJAY KUMAR KAPOOR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
"ANITHA", NO.1178, 12TH 'B' MAIN,
H.A.L. 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU 560008.
9. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR,
S/O PILLAVENKATASHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
10. SMT. NALINA,
W/O NAVEEN KUMAR P,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:21085
MFA No. 1997 of 2023
R9 AND R10 ARE R/AT HOUSE NO 89,
HASAHUDYA VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURRA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.L. SHREENEVASA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W
SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2023
PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 IN OS.NO.744/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING
THE I.A.NO.VI FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants/
defendants submits that while dismissing the application
filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, the Trial Court made it
clear that the order of injunction will not come in the way
of the defendants in taking subsidy from the competent
authorities if they are entitled and the said interim
injunction also will not come in the way of the defendants
in taking the crop loan and discharging the same. The
learned counsel submits that in view of the order passed by
NC: 2023:KHC:21085
MFA No. 1997 of 2023
the Trial Court granting an order of injunction not to
alienate, which has been entered in the revenue records
i.e., in pahani, they could not proceed with taking any loan
and getting any benefit and hence the same has to be
modified.
3. The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent
No.1 submits that if the defendants take the loan and do
not repay the loan amount, it will be a burden on the
plaintiff and the defendants cannot seek equity that they
had spent the money for the development of the property
by obtaining the loan. If the interest of the plaintiff is
safeguarded, the entry made in the revenue records can be
removed with such an undertaking.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that the appellants are not going to claim any
equity as contended by the learned counsel for the
caveator/respondent No.1, if the entry made in the revenue
records is deleted and if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit,
no liability can be on the plaintiff with regard to the loans
NC: 2023:KHC:21085
MFA No. 1997 of 2023
which have been availed and also there is an order not to
alienate the same and they are bound by the said order.
5. In view of the submissions made, the appeal is
disposed of with permission to approach the revenue
authorities for deletion of the entry in view of the earlier
order passed by the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
