Karnataka High Court
Usharani vs Smt Madduramma on 22 November, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42018
MFA No. 723 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 723 OF 2020 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.USHARANI
W/O LATE MUNIKRSIHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
2. SRI. SANTOSH
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
3. KUMARI SHANTHA LAKHSMI
D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
4. KUMARI SATHIYA
D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
Digitally signed ALL ARE R/O NO.635/A, 9TH BLOCK
by JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560069.
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY ...APPELLANTS
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI.NATARAJU B HALEMANE., ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
1. SMT. MADDURAMMA
W/O LATE K.GUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
2. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE K.GUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42018
MFA No. 723 of 2020
3. SRI CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE K GUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
4. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE K.GUNDAPPA
AGED AJBOUT 45 YEARS
5. SRI. ANIL KUMAR
S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
6. SMT ANUSUYAMMA
D/O LATE K.GUNDAPPA
W/O LATE VENKTARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
7. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
D/O LATE K.GUNDAPPA
W/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
8. SMT RUKMINI @ RUKMINIYAMMA
D/O LATE K.GUNDAPPA
W/O LATE NAGARAJ
AGED JABOUT 52 YEARS
9. SMT RENUKA
D/O LATE K.GUNDAPPA
W/O NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
10. SRI JAGADISH
S/O.LATE K.GUNDAPPA
AGD ABOUT 35 YEARS
R1 TO R10 ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TLAUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42018
MFA No. 723 of 2020
11. M/S AMRITH HOMES PVT LTD
ITS OFFICE AT CHIKKNAGMANGALA VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR.PRITPAL SINGH BINDRA
12. SMT. MUNITTHAYAMMA
W/O LATE C.H.GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
13. SMT. PREMA
D/O LATE C.H.GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
14. SMT. ROOPA
D/O LATE C.H.GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
15. SMT. LATHA
D/O LATE C H GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
16. SRI RAVIKIRAN
S/O LATE C H GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R11 TO R15 ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHIKKANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE
HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TLAUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.D.N.PRASAD., ADVOCATE FPR R1 TO R10:
AND R12 TO R16:
SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO. ADVOCATE FOR R11)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2019 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.IV TO VI IN OS.NO. 498/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:42018
MFA No. 723 of 2020
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE I.A.NOS. 4 TO 6 FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the CPC
has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the order dated
29.07.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal on
I.A.Nos.4 to 6 in O.S.No.498/2018 whereby the trial Court
has dismissed the said applications filed by the plaintiffs
under XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
2. For the sake of the convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and
separate possession. Along with the plaint, they have filed
I.A.Nos.4 to 6 seeking an order of temporary injunction
restraining the defendant Nos.15 to 25 from alienating the
suit schedule item No.4, restraining defendant Nos.15 to
NC: 2023:KHC:42018
30 from alienating the suit schedule item No.5 property
and restraining defendant Nos.15 to 30 from changing or
altering the nature of the suit schedule item Nos.4 and 5
properties.
4. After service of summons, defendant No.25 appeared
through his counsel and filed objection. After hearing the
parties, the trial Court has dismissed the applications filed
by the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiffs are before this Court in this appeal.
5. The specific case of defendant No.25 is that there was
a joint development agreement between defendant Nos.25
and defendant Nos.15 to 24 and 26 to 30 and they have
invested huge amount for constructions and development
of the properties in question.
6. The suit filed before the trial Court is now set down for
framing of the issues. Therefore, considering the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANDALI RANGANNA
AND ORS. Vs. T. RAMACHANDRA AND ORS. reported in
NC: 2023:KHC:42018
(2008) Vol.11 SSC 1 and in the interest of justice, I pass
the following order:
ORDER
a) The order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the trial Court
on I.A.Nos.4 to 6 in O.S.No.498/2018 is hereby
modified.
b) Defendant No.25 is permitted to carryout the
constructions in the suit schedule item Nos.4 and 5,
in accordance with law and the same is subject to
ultimate decision of the suit.
c) If any third-party interest is created upon completion
of the constructions by defendant No.25, the deed in
question shall clearly stipulate that the matter is sub
judice and the sale shall be subject to the ultimate
decision of the suit.
d) With the above conditions, the appeal is disposed
of.
e) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible but not later than one year
NC: 2023:KHC:42018
from the date of receipt of certified copy of the
judgment.
f) Both the parties are directed to cooperate for early
disposal of the suit.
g) All pending applications do not survive and the same
are also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA
