Karnataka High Court
Sri. D L Sunil Vijendra vs Sri. Sathyanarayana D L on 1 July, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24459
RFA No. 1701 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1701 OF 2023 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. D.L. SUNIL VIJENDRA
S/O LATE D.L. VIJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2. D.L KOKILA VIJENDRA
D/O LATE D.L VIJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 164, 8TH A MAIN
KORAMANGALA, 3RD BLOCK
BENGALURU -560 034.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUMITHRA R AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka SRI. SATHYANARAYANA D.L
S/O LATE M.D LAKSHMIPATHY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 26,
ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET
YALEGUNDAPALYA,
BENGALURU -560 047.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI. N.CHANNAKRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE
1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24459
RFA No. 1701 of 2023
06.07.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.660/2018 ON THE FILE OF LII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is
taken up for final disposal.
2. The appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, calling in
question the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2023 passed in
O.S.No.660/2018 by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the ranking of the
parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent
injunction, which was dismissed by the trial Court on the
reason that a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable
since there is a title dispute over the suit schedule property
between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
NC: 2024:KHC:24459
5. It is submitted that the husband of the deceased
plaintiff, namely D.L. Vijendra, has not sold the property and
the original documents are still with the plaintiffs.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/defendant submitted that the plaintiff's husband
D.L.Vijendra has sold the property in favour of the defendant
through a registered sale deed. It is further submitted that by
suppressing the said sale deed, the plaintiffs have filed a suit
for permanent injunction. On this caption issue, the trial Court
has dismissed the suit since there is a cloud over the title
between the plaintiffs and defendant. When this being the
factual matrix in the appeal that there is dispute in regard to
title between the plaintiffs and defendant, then the trial Court is
correct in declining to grant decree of permanent injunction.
7. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant
has given an undertaking not to put up construction on the suit
schedule property. Reserving liberty to the plaintiffs to file a
comprehensive suit for declaration, the appeal filed by the
plaintiffs/appellants is hereby disposed of. The undertaking
given by the defendant in this appeal shall be continued for a
period of three weeks.
NC: 2024:KHC:24459
8. Upon suit for declaration being filed, then the trial
Court shall consider the application, if any, to be filed,
independently and on its own merits, without being influenced
by the order passed by this Court.
9. If the appellants do not file a suit for declaration
within a period of three weeks, then the undertaking given by
the defendant shall stand vacated automatically.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KTY
