Karnataka High Court
Sri C Mohan Sonu vs Sri H R Chandra @ Ramchandra on 16 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6687
MFA No. 1828 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1826 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1828 OF 2022 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1826 OF 2022 (CPC)
IN MFA No.1828/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI C MOHAN SONU
S/O H R CHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO.14 BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT
Digitally signed SANJAYANAGARA POST
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH
NAGASHETTYHALLI
COURT OF BANGALORE-560094.
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. THRIMURTHY K P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI H R CHANDRA @ RAMCHANDRA
S/O UTHNALAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6687
MFA No. 1828 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1826 of 2022
2. KUM. C AMRUTHA VARSHINI
D/O H R CHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2
R/AT NO.14, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT
SANJAYNAGARA POST, NAGASHETTYHALLI
BANGALORE-560094.
3. SRI H R NARAYANASWAMY
S/O UTHNALAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A 16/1 ANNAPOORNA APARTMENT
NANJAPPA GARDEN, BABUSAS PALYA
BEHIND NAGA PALACE, KALYANA NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560043.
4. SMT. KAMALA
W/O LATE K H SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5. SMT. LAKSHMI
D/O LATE K H SUBRAMANI
W/O SRI DIWAKARA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT NO.1072, LAKSHMI NILAYAN
8TH CROSS, ADARSHA LAYOUT
I BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560079
6. SRI MAHAVEER GULECHA
S/O SRI TEJRAJ GULECHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO.40/A, CLASSIC ORCHIDS
BEHIND MENAKSHI TEMPLE, BANNERGHATTA
ROAD BANGALORE-560076.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6687
MFA No. 1828 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1826 of 2022
7. M/S MANYATA REALTY
NO.9/1 CLASSIC COURT
RICHMOND ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN
BANGALORE-560025.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI TEJRAJ GULECHA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B S RADHANANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR
C/R6 & R7)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.20.01.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.1
IN O.S.NO.5008/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU AND ETC.
IN MFA No.1826/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI C MOHAN SONU
S/O H R CHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO.14 BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT
SANJAYANAGARA POST
NAGASHETTYHALLI
BANGALORE-560094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. THRIMURTHY K P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI H R CHANDRA @ RAMCHANDRA
S/O UTHNALAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6687
MFA No. 1828 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1826 of 2022
2. KUM. C AMRUTHA VARSHINI
D/O H R CHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2
R/AT NO.14, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT
SANJAYNAGARA POST, NAGASHETTYHALLI
BANGALORE-560094.
3. SRI H R NARAYANASWAMY
S/O UTHNALAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A 16/1, ANNAPOORNA APARTMENT
NANJAPPA GARDEN, BABUSAS PALYA
BEHIND NAGA PALACE, KALYANA NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560043.
4. SMT. KAMALA
W/O LATE K H SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5. SMT. LAKSHMI
D/O LATE K H SUBRAMANI
W/O SRI DIWAKARA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT NO.1072, LAKSHMI NILAYAN
8TH CROSS, ADARSHA LAYOUT
I BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560079
6. SRI MAHAVEER GULECHA
S/O SRI TEJRAJ GULECHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO.40/A, CLASSIC ORCHIDS
BEHIND MENAKSHI TEMPLE
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:6687
MFA No. 1828 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 1826 of 2022
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE-560076.
7. M/S MANYATA REALTY
NO.9/1 CLASSIC COURT
RICHMOND ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN
BANGALORE-560025.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI TEJRAJ GULECHA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B S RADHANANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 & R7;
SRU G R VENKATESH MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.20.01.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.2
IN O.S.NO.5008/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2. These two appeals are filed in view of rejection
of application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1
and 2 of CPC praying the Court to restrain the defendants
NC: 2024:KHC:6687
from alienating the suit schedule properties and also
directing them not to change the nature of the suit
schedule properties. The Trial Court having considered the
pleadings of both the parties, rejected the application in
coming to the conclusion that already some considerations
have been passed even on behalf of the minor plaintiffs
and their father had received some consideration while
executing the documents. Hence, there is no prima facie
case to consider the application filed under Order 39 Rule
1 and 2 of CPC.
3. The learned counsel for the respective
appellants would vehemently contend that the very
approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and the property
originally belongs to the grandfather one Uthnalappa who
derived the property from partition in the year 1945 and
thereafter he sold the property in favour of his brother and
again he repurchased the property in the name of his
minor children and once again the property was
partitioned among the children and release deeds were
NC: 2024:KHC:6687
also exchanged between the parties and power of attorney
also executed. Based on the said power of attorney,
defendant No.7 had purchased the property to the extent
of 1 acre 7 guntas from different parties and now, he has
taken up construction in the said property to the extent of
1 acre 7 guntas.
4. The counsel for defendant No.3 also contends
that already construction is taken up entering into the
Joint Development Agreement in respect of Sy.No.81/2a to
the extent of 38 guntas.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties submit that one Uthnalappa derived 38
guntas of land under the Will and the remaining properties
were derived from the family partition in the year 1945.
When construction is taken up by the parties and also
having taken note of the fact that suit is filed by the minor
son of Ramachndrappa and the said Ramachandrappa also
earlier executed certain documents, the Trial Court has not
committed any error in considering those documents.
NC: 2024:KHC:6687
However, taking into note of the fact that if the suits are
filed for the relief of partition and the same are pending
from 2009 onwards and whether the plaintiffs are entitled
for a share in the suit schedule properties or the father
had sold the properties as against the interest of his minor
children has to be determined by the Trial Court.
6. Taking into note of the fact that the family
members are before the Court for the relief of partition, it
is appropriate to club all the suits and common judgment
has to be passed assigning the said suits to one Court.
Hence, the Principal City Civil Judge is directed to post all
the suits bearing numbers O.S.Nos..2708/2009,
4536/2016, 5008/2016 and 8573/2018 to one Court.
7. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the said
suits within a period of one year.
8. The parties are directed to assist the Trial Court
to dispose of the case within one year.
NC: 2024:KHC:6687
9. It is appropriate to direct defendant No.7 not to
sell one flat in the construction which he had undertaken
through the developer as well as defendant No.3 is
restrained from selling two flats in Sy.No.81/2a in which
construction has been taken to the extent of 38 guntas in
order to protect the interest of the plaintiffs till the
disposal of the suit.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties submit that when an application is filed
before the Trial Court for amendment of the plaint to
include all the properties in the said suit, the said
application has been rejected and against the said
rejection order, writ petition is filed which is pending
before this Court. The counsel further submit that stay is
granted in the said writ petition. Hence, it is appropriate
to direct the respective counsel to appear before the writ
Court and make their submission in the writ petition and
get it disposed of the matter in view of the direction given
by this Court for disposal of the suits within a period of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6687
one year and also in view of the direction to safeguard the
interest of the minor plaintiff.
11. With this observation, the appeals are disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
