Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniyappa vs Sri Chikkasangappa on 15 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
MFA No. 8521 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8521 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNISHAMI @
MUNISHAMI @ CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
@ VADDARA MUNISHAMY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT NO.263,
SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BETTADAHALSURU POST
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 562157
2. SRI MUNI NARAYANAPPA,
S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNISHAMI @
MUNISHAMI @ CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
Digitally signed
@ VADDARA MUNISHAMY
by SHARANYA T AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
COURT OF BETTADAHALSURU POST
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 562157
3. KUM MUNI VENKATAMMA,
D/O LATE CHIKKA MUNISHAMI @
MUNISHAMI @ CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
@ VADDARA MUNISHAMY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT NO.218/1,
SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BETTADAHALSURU POST
BENGALURU NORTH
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
MFA No. 8521 of 2023
BENGALURU - 562157
4. SRI VENKATAPPA,
S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNISHAMI @
MUNISHAMI @ CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
@ VADDARA MUNISHAMY
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BETTADAHALSURU POST
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 562157
5. SRI CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNISHAMI @ MUNISHAMI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT NO.118,
SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BETTADAHALSURU POST
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 562157
6. SRI AKKAYAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKA MUNISHAMI @ MUNISHAMI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BETTADAHALSURU POST
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 562157
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
APPELLANT NO.1 TO 6
SRI V RAJU S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BETTADAHALSURU POST
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 562157
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH H., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
MFA No. 8521 of 2023
AND:
1. SRI CHIKKASANGAPPA
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
2. SRI DODDASANGAPPA,
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
3. SRI SIDDALINGAMMA,
W/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
4. SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR S C
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
5. SRI BASAVARAJU S C
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEIKARAIH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 5 ARE
LEGAL HEIRS OF SMT. PUTTAHONNAMMA
W/O LATE SANGAPPA AND HER ONLY
SON LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
6. SRI C RAJANNA
S/O LATE CHIKKACHENAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT SUGGATTA VILLAGE,
HUNASEMARANAHALLI POST,
JALA HOBLI, NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560064.
7. SRI CHOWDAPPA
S/O ALLEGEDLY LATE CHIKKAMUNIBHOVI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
MFA No. 8521 of 2023
8. SRI NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O ALLEGEDLY LATE CHIKKAMUNIBHOVI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.7 AND 8
R/AT NO.2, 5TH CROSS,
SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, MARUTHI NAGAR,
KOGILU MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560064.
9. SRI MUNISWAMAIAH
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
10. SRI MUNIKRISHNA
S/O SRI MUNISHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
11. SRI DINESH KUMAR
S/O SRI MUNISHAMAIAH,
MAJOR,
RESPONDENT NOS.9 TO 11 ARE
R/AT SUGGATTA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, NOTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560064.
12. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE YELLAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.76,
TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD,
3RD CROSS,
DRC POST, S.G.PALYA,
BENGALURU - 560029.
13. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O SRI CHINNABOVI,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.339,
SHANTHIPURA,
HUSKURU POST,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
MFA No. 8521 of 2023
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560100.
14. SRI RAMU
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.522,
NEAR RAMA TEMPLE ROAD,
SHANTHIPURA VILLAGE,
HUSKURU POST
SARJAPUR HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 100.
15. SRI RAJU
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560079
16. SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
S/O LATE SUBBANNA
AGED MAJOR,
17. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
W/O LATE SUBBANNA,
AGED MAJOR,
18. SRI PUTTANNA,
S/O LATE SUBBANNA,
AGED MAJOR,
19. SMT. NANJAMMA
D/O LATE SUBBANNA,
W/O LATE NAGARAJ,
AGED MAJOR,
20. SMT. PILLAMMA
W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
MFA No. 8521 of 2023
21. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
22. SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
23. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA,
D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
RESPONDENT NOS.16 TO 23 ARE
R/AT SUGGATTA VILLAGE,
HUNASEMARANAHALLI POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560064.
24. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA
W/O LATE LOKESH
AGED MAJOR,
25. SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE LOKESH,
AGED MAJOR,
RESPONDENT NOS 24 & 25 ARE
RESIDNG AT NO.5/A,
MATHRU LAYOUT, 4TH CROSS,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560064.
26. SRI SOMU
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560064.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
MFA No. 8521 of 2023
27. SMT. JAYA S
W/O SURESH KUMAR N
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDIGN AT NO.30,
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD,
1ST A CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGARA,
1ST STAGE, JALAHALLI
BANGALORE EAST,
BANGALORE - 560014.
28. SRI SURESH,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT SUGGATTA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI ARUN KUMAR Y.H., ADVOCATE FOR C/R18;
SRI S.A.KHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R8, R26 & R27;
SRI K.S.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R17 TO R23;
SRI RAJENDRA K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R24 & R25;
SRI H.C.LOKESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR R28;
R27 - SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.02.2024,
NOTICE TO R9 TO R15 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.05.12.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 TO 3
IN O.S.NO.690/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING IA NO.1 TO 3
FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
MFA No. 8521 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the
I.As.1 to 3 wherein a prayer is made not to change the
khatha; not to encumber the suit schedule property and
not to put up any construction. The Trial Court has
committed an error in dismissing all the I.As and it
requires interference.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the Trial Court considered the applications on
merit and the relief is also sought not only against the
respondents who are before this court. The order has been
passed even without service of notice against the other
respondents and question of granting any interim order
before this court does not arise.
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and
taking note of the plaint averments and also the I.As
which have been filed inter alia seeking the relief of
temporary injunction wherein the main prayer sought is to
declare plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 as the absolute owners of the
suit 'A' schedule property and suit schedule 'B' and 'C'
property are portion of 'A' schedule property belonging to
them. The appellants have also sought for a relief of
mandatory injunction against the defendants to restore
the physical possession of the suit 'B' and 'C' schedule
property, which is portion of 'A' schedule property and also
to direct defendant Nos.1 to 28 to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lakh
per month towards illegal and unauthorized occupation of
'B' and 'C' schedule property from the date of suit, until
the restoration of possession of the said properties in
favour of the plaintiffs and to declare common final order
dated 19.12.2019 passed in RRT between defendant Nos.1
to 25 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
as not binding and also to declare withdrawal of Appeal
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
No.174/2020, which is a collusive act of defendant Nos.1
to 25 and also sought for permanent injunction.
5. This court has already pointed out that the
interim orders were also sought not to change the khatha,
not to encumber and also not to put up any construction
and when the suits summons has not been served against
the other respondents and the Trial Court also considered
those applications and when the relief is sought against all
the respondents and the Trial Court when not issued any
ad interim injunction ought to have taken care of other
respondents also and directed the plaintiff to get the
summons served against the other respondents also and
thereafter consider the applications, the same has not
been done.
6. This court has directed to serve the other
respondents also but the learned counsel for the appellant
expresses his inability to serve the notice against
respondents No.8 and 9 and when the learned counsel for
the appellants is also unable to secure them before this
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6558
court also, it is appropriate to set aside the order of the
Trial Court and to consider the matter afresh and the
appellants are directed to serve the notice against the
respondent Nos.9 to 11 and also to bring the legal
representatives of respondent No.16. Learned counsel also
submits that he has already filed the application and the
same is pending consideration and hence the Trial Court
is directed to consider the legal representative application
in respect of respondent No.16 and if the appellant counsel
serves notice against respondent Nos.8 to 11, the Trial
Court to give an opportunity to both of them to complete
their pleadings within 15 days from their appearance and
thereafter, consider these IAs within span of 15 days from
that date.
With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
