Karnataka High Court
Smt Srividhya vs Sri Vijayaraghava Reddy on 22 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7491
MFA No. 307 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SRIVIDHYA
W/O KRISHNA REDDY
D/O VIJAYARAGHAVA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT DORR NO 3/359,
AGGONDAPALLI VILLAGE
ACHETTIPALLI POST
DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK,
KRISHANGIRI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NANDA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 1. SRI VIJAYARAGHAVA REDDY
Location: HIGH S/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANDEBOMMASANDRA
BIDARAHALLIHOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE.
2. SRI V. RAGHU
SON OF MR VIJAYARAGHVA REDDY
BANDEBOMMASANDRA
BIDARAHALLIHOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7491
MFA No. 307 of 2024
3. SRI PRASADH REDDY
S/O MUDDHAPPAREDDY
CHIKKANAHALLAI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE - 64
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.08.11.2023 PASSED ON IA Nos.1 AND
2 IN O.S.NO.227/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE
4 OF CPC FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.3.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant.
2. The Trial Court while dismissing the application,
given the reasons in detail that the property was sold in
the year 2013 itself in favour of the defendant No.3. The
suit is filed in the year 2023 and all the revenue records
are also stands in the name of defendant No.3. After lapse
of 9 years, came up before the Court for seeking the relief
NC: 2024:KHC:7491
of partition. Apart from that the Trial Court has also taken
note of the fact that other property was also sold in the
year 2016 itself and the purchaser has not been made as
party to the proceedings. The Trial Court has observed
that to disprove the same during the time of trial. The
prayer of plaintiff as sought in the I.A that from alienating
the suit schedule property to the 3rd party pending
disposal of the suit is concerned, the appellant has not
made out prima facie case and the properties were sold in
favour of defendant No.3 long back in the year 2009 itself.
The suit is filed after lapse of 13 years. Hence, the
reasoned order has been passed by the Trial Court, the
matter requires to be considered with regard to the
challenge of sale deed and also not making the
subsequent purchasers as parties to the suit. Hence, I do
not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the
Trial Court. The Trial Court given detail reasoning while
passing the order in rejection of I.A and no merits in the
present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:7491
3. In view of the dismissal of the appeal,
I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
