Karnataka High Court
Sri.B.S. Badrinath vs Sri. Malleshappa on 2 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30809
WP No. 1991 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1991 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.S. BADRINATH,
S/O. B.K. SRIDHARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT SREEDHARA COMPOUND,
SJ ROAD, JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
NOW R/AT HIRIYUR,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UMESH B. N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MALLESHAPPA
Digitally
signed by H K S/O. LATE MALLAIAH,
HEMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
Location:
High Court of R/AT NO. 9/156, PAPER TOWN,
Karnataka BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA - 577 301.
2. SMT. SAKAMMA
W/O. LATE GANGADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
3. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30809
WP No. 1991 of 2018
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 41/A,
HUDCO COLONY, MILITARY CAMP,
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIMOGA - 577 301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED;
V/O DATED 29.03.2023, NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 16.12.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI
IN MA NO.23/2017 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.155/2017. It
is contended that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule
property by way of a court auction. Thereafter, the
Judgment Debtor illegally sold the property in favour of
respondent No.1 herein. On the strength of the said sale
deed, respondent No.1 though he does not get any valid
title over the suit schedule property, he is trying to put up
construction on the said suit schedule property. On the
NC: 2024:KHC:30809
said ground, the petitioner herein filed Original Suit
No.155/2017 with a prayer to declare that the sale deed
executed in favour of respondent No.1 regarding the suit
schedule property is not binding on the plaintiff and a
mandatory injunction that respondent No.1 should remove
the construction put up. He also preferred an interlocutory
application to restrain respondent No.1 herein from further
constructing on the suit schedule property.
2. The trial Court has allowed the interlocutory
application in favour of the petitioner herein. However,
respondent No.1 preferred M.A.No.23/2017 before the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi. The
same has been reversed and the interlocutory application
filed by the petitioner in the original suit has been
dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ
petition is filed.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that he alone is the
owner of the suit schedule property and he has made out
a prima-facie case in respect of the same and respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:30809
No.1 should not be permitted to put up any construction
on the suit schedule property pending disposal of
O.S.No.155/2017.
4. Per contra, respondent No.1 contend that he is the
owner of the suit schedule property and he is in
possession of the suit schedule property. The property
purchased by the petitioner in court auction is a different
property all together and for that reason, it is prayed that
the writ petition be dismissed.
5. The pleadings in the plaint and the prayer made
therein reveals that respondent No.1 is in possession of
the suit schedule property and for that reason he is
putting up the construction. That is the reason why
petitioner has made a prayer for removal of the said
construction by respondent No.1.
6. The larger question that is required to be decided in
the original suit is whether the petitioner is the owner of
the suit schedule property or the respondent No.1 herein.
NC: 2024:KHC:30809
If the trial Court upon completion of the trial, comes to the
conclusion that petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule
property, then in that event, respondent No.1 shall be
required to remove the construction made thereon.
7. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that it
is not a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the
first Appellate Court in M.A.No.23/2017.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
MCR
CT:SNN
