Karnataka High Court
Sri M Anjinappa vs L Srinivas on 23 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7632
MFA No. 7999 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7999 OF 2016 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M. ANJINAPPA
S/O LATE M. MADDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.10,
AREHALLI, UTTARAHALLI,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE-61
REP. BY HIS SON AND GPA HOLDER
ANAND A.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(a) SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE SRI M.ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH
1(b) SRI A.DHANANJAYA
COURT OF S/O LATE SRI M.ANJINAPPA
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
1(c) SRI A. BABU
S/O LATE SRI M.ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1(d) SRI A. ANANDA
S/O LATE SRI M.ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
1(e) SRI A.DEVARAJ
S/O LATE SRI M.ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7632
MFA No. 7999 of 2016
APPELLANTS 1(a) TO 1(e)
ALL RESIDING AT NO.10,
AREHALLI, UTTARAHALLI,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST
BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU-560061.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. L. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.30/1,
22ND MAIN ROAD,
PADMANABHANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 070
ALSO AT: NO.1636, 30TH CROSS,
OPP. TO DHARMAGIRI MANJUNATHA TEMPLE,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-70.
2. N. VENKATESH
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.12/2, SUTEJA NILAYA,
11TH MAIN ROAD,
KADARENAHALLI,
BENDRENAGARA,
BANGALORE-70
3. SHASHIKALA G. KAMOJI
W/O G.M.KAMOJI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.101/42, SUSHEELA NIVAS,
11TH CROSS, 28TH MAIN ROAD,
PADMANABHANAGAR,
BANGALORE-70
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7632
MFA No. 7999 of 2016
4. M. NETHRAVATHI
W/O B.G. PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.1268, 9TH B CROSS ROAD,
KAVIRANNA ROAD, SRINAGARA,
BANGALORE-50.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DT.17.10.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.760/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING I.A.NO.1
FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of
dismissal of I.A. in not granting the relief of temporary
injunction from altering the nature of suit schedule property, till
the disposal of the suit.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff is that
he had purchased the property in the year 1994 and based on
the said sale deed, now he has sought for the relief of
NC: 2024:KHC:7632
declaration before the Trial Court and also sought for an interim
relief. On the other hand, it is the contention that after
purchase, he had executed a power of attorney in favour of
defendant No.1 and his brother L. Muniraju for development of
2 acres of land out of 3 acres. Accordingly, the plaintiff has
executed GPA in favour of the defendant No.1 for development
of schedule 'C' property on 19.03.1995. The plaintiff has
executed GPA in favour of L. Muniraju on 14.11.1994 for
development of schedule 'D' property. L. Muniraju, without
executing the work of development, died after execution of the
power of attorney. Even the defendant No.1 not executed the
development work and not paid the amount to the plaintiff and
hence, the acts done by the defendant No.1 are not binding on
the plaintiff.
4. The Trial Court, having considered the pleadings of
the plaintiff and also the defendants, discussed with regard to
the prima facie case is concerned and taken note of the sale
deed of the year 1994 and also the GPA executed in favour of
defendant No.1 and L. Muniraju. The Trial Court also taken
note of the fact that consequent upon the power of attorney,
NC: 2024:KHC:7632
sale deeds are executed and now, the prospective purchasers
are in possession of the property which they have purchased
and some of them have constructed building. The Trial Court,
while rejecting the application, taken note of the fact that the
plaintiff has sought for the relief of mandatory injunction,
possession and also demolition and balance of convenience is
also considered while answering point Nos.2 and 3 that the
balance of convenience is more in favour of the defendants,
since they have spent money and purchased the property
based on the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff. When
such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the
Trial Court and there is no merit in the appeal to reverse the
findings of the Trial Court
5. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) However, taking note of the fact that suit is
of the year 2016 and now, we are in 2024, it
is appropriate to dispose of the suit within a
period of one year from today.
NC: 2024:KHC:7632
(iii) The parties and their respective counsels are
directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of
the suit within the stipulated time.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
