Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shivappa .H vs Sri. Narasimha Reddy .A on 2 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13437
MFA No. 6212 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6212 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVAPPA .H
S/O. HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.92/1,
2ND MAIN, BEML LAYOUT,
THUBARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560066
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. NARASIMHA REDDY .A
S/O. ANKANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.130
YELLAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
M.S. NAGAR POST,
Digitally BANGALORE-33.
signed by BS ...RESPONDENT
RAVIKUMAR
Location: (BY SRI. V. KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
HIGH
COURT OF THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
KARNATAKA
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2021
IN O.S.NO.25695/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (CCH-
21), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2
READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13437
MFA No. 6212 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.25695/2021
on the file of IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Mayohall, Bengaluru (CCH - 21) challenging an order dated
24.03.2023, by which, an application (I.A.No.I) for interim
injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the
possession of plaintiff in respect of suit site bearing No.31 in a
layout formed by the NGF employees and Ex-Employees House
Building Cooperative Society Limited, Bengaluru, was rejected
2. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased suit
property in terms of a sale deed dated 19.03.2021 from
Mr. V.Selvaraj and that he had enclosed it by compound and
also constructed an asbestos sheet roof shed. He claimed that
the defendant attempted to demolish the shed which was
constructed by the plaintiff in the suit property with the help of
the neighbours. He therefore, sought for perpetual injunction
restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession.
An application for interim injunction was also filed to restrain
the defendant from interfering with his possession until disposal
of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:13437
3. The suit was contested by the defendant who
claimed that the suit property was purchased by B.M.Thimma
Reddy and Sri. B.T.Raghurama Reddy and Sri. T.Raja Gopal
represented by their power of attorney Sri. B.T.Balakrishna
Reddy from one Sri. Jesvantlal T.Seth in terms of the sale deed
dated 03.08.1973. He contended that the land was converted
for non-agricultural purposes on 16.12.1963. Consequent there
to, the suit property was assessed in the name of
Sri. B.T.Balakrishna Reddy by the local panchayat. At a
partition between the defendant and his family members, the
suit property fell to the share of the defendant and from then
on, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit
property. He claimed that the vendor of plaintiff had no manner
of right, title or interest in the suit property but claimed that
NGEF society had allotted site No.31 in his favour and was
illegally interfering with his possession. He claimed that this
Court in W.P.No.32353/1993 had held that NGEF society had
indulged in unethical activities in allotting sites without
acquiring the same. He claimed that Mr. V. Selvaraj, the vendor
of the plaintiff had fraudulently obtained a Khata in his favour
in respect of the site bearing No.31 and was interfering with the
NC: 2024:KHC:13437
possession of the defendant in the suit property. He contended
that he therefore filed a suit in O.S.No.5610/2020 against the
vendor of the plaintiff and the Court after being prima facie
satisfied that the defendant is the owner in possession of the
property, granted an order of interim injunction restraining the
vendor of the plaintiff from interfering with his possession. He
contended that the said order of injunction is still in force.
Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit for perpetual
injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his
possession. The application for interim injunction was also
resisted on similar grounds.
4. The Trial Court after considering the contentions
urged found that the defendant had filed O.S.No.5610/2020
against the vendor of the plaintiff and that the Court had
granted an order of injunction against the vendor of the plaintiff
in terms of the order dated 13.11.2020. It held that the plaintiff
had purchased the property in question from the defendant in
O.S.No.5610/2020 on 19.03.2021 and therefore, held that
plaintiff is not entitled for any injunction against the defendant.
NC: 2024:KHC:13437
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has
filed this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that
the plaintiff had already taken steps to be implead in
O.S.No.5610/2020 and pending consideration of this application
for impleadment in O.S.No.5610/2020 and the status-quo of
the property may be ordered to be maintained.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent
and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his
submission.
8. Be that as it may, since the vendor of the plaintiff
was restrained from interfering with the possession of the
defendant in the suit schedule property, the plaintiff having
purchased the property after the order of injunction was passed
against his vendor, cannot complain that the defendant is
interfering with his possession in the suit schedule property.
9. In view of the above, the Trial Court was justified in
not granting any interim relief to the plaintiff in the instant suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:13437
Therefore, there is no error warranting interference in this
appeal.
10. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HJ
