Smt. Ratnavva W/O Shekappa ... vs Basavaraj S/O Fakkirappa Talawar
2023 Latest Caselaw 6952 Kant

                                                       -1-
                                                             NC: 2023:KHC-D:11680
                                                               MFA No. 102642 of 2023




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                   DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                                    BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                          MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102642 OF 2023 (CPC)
                          BETWEEN:

                          1.    SMT. RATNAVVA W/O SHEKAPPA TALAWAR
                                AGED 48 YEARS,
                                OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,

                          2.    KIRAN S/O SHEKAPPA TALAWAR
                                AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

                          3.    SHWETHA D/O SHEKAPPA TALAWAR
                                AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

                          4.    NAVEEN S/O SHEKAPPA TALAWAR
                                AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

                          5.    ANKITA D/O SHEKAPPA TALAWAR
                                AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

                                ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
                                KOPPAGONDANAKOPPA,
            Digitally
            signed by
            VIJAYALAXMI
                                HANGAL TALUK-581104,
VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT
M BHAT      Date:
            2023.10.06
            15:25:38
                                HAVERI DISRICT.
            +0530
                                                                         ...APPELLANTS
                          (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

                          AND:

                          1.    BASAVARAJ S/O FAKKIRAPPA TALAWAR
                                AGED 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

                          2.    SMT. SUJATA W/O YALLAPPA TALAWAR
                                AGED 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

                          3.    PAVANKUMAR S/O YALLAPPA TALAWAR
                                AGED 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
                               -2-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC-D:11680
                                       MFA No. 102642 of 2023




4.   PALLAVI D/O YALLAPPA TALAWAR
     AGED 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT BILAGALI,
     SORABA TALUK,
     SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429.

5.   VASHIMAHMAD S/O ABDULMAJEED LOHAR
     AGED 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
     R/AT: TILAVALLI, HANGAL TALUK-581104,
     HAVERI DISTRICT.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R5-NOTICE SERVED)


      THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43(1)(r) OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE    THE   ORDER     DATED      20.03.2023   ON   I.A-I   IN
O.S.NO. 119/2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT HANAGAL,
AND ALLOW THE I.A-I AS PRAYED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS
HONBLE COURT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING AWARD OF
COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is against an order rejecting the plaintiffs'

application seeking temporary injunction. The temporary

injunction is sought against respondent No.5 to restrain

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11680 MFA No. 102642 of 2023

him from alienating the suit schedule property till the

disposal of the suit.

2. The suit is one for specific performance of

contract alleged to have been executed on 27.02.2008.

The plaintiffs claim that they have paid Rs.8,25,000/- in

the year 2008 agreeing to purchase the suit schedule

property. By the time suit was filed, the property is

already sold under registered sale deed dated 07.04.2022

in favour of defendant No.5.

3. The trial Court is of the view that prima facie

case is not made out on account of inordinate delay in

filing the suit for specific performance.

4. Sri.Madanmohan M Khannur, the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would

submit that if the property is sold and if the plaintiffs

succeed, then it will lead to multiplicity of litigation, as

such he would submit that the trial Court ought to have

granted temporary injunction.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11680 MFA No. 102642 of 2023

5. It is also his submission that in view of the fact

that the agreement for sale is produced, the trial Court

ought to have held prima facie case is in favour of the

plaintiffs.

6. This Court has considered the contentions

raised at the bar and also perused the impugned order.

7. The trial Court has also noticed the fact that

O.S.No.402/2013 was filed in respect of the very same

property seeking specific performance of the agreement

dated 04.11.2004 and the said suit was withdrawn stating

that the matter is settled.

8. Noticing the fact that suit is filed 14 years after

the agreement and previous suit being withdrawn, the trial

Court has concluded that prima facie case is not made out.

After analysing the facts pleaded in the plaint as well as in

the written statement and after considering the impugned

order, this Court is of the view that no case is made out to

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11680 MFA No. 102642 of 2023

interfere with the order rejecting the application seeking

temporary injunction.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SH