Karnataka High Court
Sri P Venkatesh vs Sri C K Prasad on 1 March, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8771
MFA No. 546 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.546 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI P. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O LATE PUTTAPPA
R.AT NO. 404, OLD KEB
OFFICE ROAD, KADUGODI
BENGALURU-5600067
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GANGADHARAIAH A N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI C.K. PRASAD
Digitally signed S/O LATE CHANDRAIAH
by SHARANYA T AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/AT NO.684
COURT OF
KARNATAKA C BLOCK, 1st MAIN
AECS LAYOUT, KUNDLAHALLI
BENGALURU 560037
2. MRS. C. CHITRA
D/O LATE CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1517, TIRUMALA
17th MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 2nd PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8771
MFA No. 546 of 2023
3. MRS. CHETANA
D/O LATE CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
NO.33, 1st MAIN, 1st STAGE
AREKERE, MICO LAYOUT
BENGALURU 560 076
4. M/S LEONARD CONSTRUCTIONS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. KATICKANENI RAHUL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O K DIWAKAR RAO
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO. 49, 8th MAIN, JAYARAMAREDDY LAYOUT
HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU 560 043
5. VENEPALLY SWARUPARANI
W/O VENEPALLY SRINIVASA RAO
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT 4-75/2 SANJEEVPUR
CHNDRAKALA MAHABUBNAGAR
ANDHRAPRADESH - 509 412
6. MS. HARIKA KATIKANENI
W/O SRI. KATIKANENI RAHUL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RAT NO. 101, VAYU
MY HOME NAVA DEEPA
MADHAPUR HYDERABAD
TELANGANA - 500081
7. SRI. Y A SOMASUNDAR
S/O LATE Y APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8771
MFA No. 546 of 2023
8. SRI. Y A MANJUNATH
S/O LATE Y APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
9. SRI. Y A GANGADHAR
S/O LATE Y APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 7, 8 AND 9 ARE ALL
R/AT NO. 27, OPP. BALDWIN SCHOOL
BEML 5th STAGE, BEL LAYOUT
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU 560098
10. MRS. Y DAKSHAYINI
W/O LATE SRI. SHIVAPPA @ NIRAVANAPPA
NO.321, 14th CROSS
2nd BLOCK , JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU 560 011
11. SRI. A BABU
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT DOMMANSANDRA VILLAGE
BIDRAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
12. M/S SRAVYA INFRA PROJECTS (P) LTD
A REGISTERED COMPANY
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ]
PLOT NO.193, ROAD, NO.73
PRASASHAN NAGAR, JUBILEE HILLS
HYDERABAD - 33
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. B PARTHA SARATHI REDDY
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. B PARTHA SARATHI REDDY
S/O LATE B SATYA NARAYANA REDDY
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:8771
MFA No. 546 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OFFICE AT H N 8-2-293/82/1/47/C
PLOT NO.47C, MLA COLONY
BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD
TELANGANA-500033
13. THE SUB REGISTRAR
3-1 , AVLAHALLI VILLAGE
OLD MADRAS ROAD
BENGALURU 560 049
14. THE SUB REGISTRAR
MAHADEVAPURA
OLD MADRAS ROAD
BENGALURU 560 049
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGA REDDY V, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION
151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.09.12.2022
PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN O.S.NO.161/2019 ON THE FILE
OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated
09.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.161/2019
wherein the plaintiffs have invoked the provision under
NC: 2024:KHC:8771
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary
injunction restraining defendant No.4 from selling or
creating any 3rd party rights over schedule A property till
the disposal of the suit. It is contended in the plaint that
plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and in possession as it
was granted to his father, who died instate, but by
creating sale deed, defendant No.4 tries to create third
party rights over the said property. Hence, filed the suit
for the relief of declaration and inter alia sought for the
relief of temporary injunction restraining defendant No.4
from alienating or creating any third party rights over A
schedule property.
3. Defendant No.4 appeared and filed statement of
objection disputing the suit, ownership and also
possession of application schedule property by the plaintiff
since he had purchased the property from respondent
Nos.7 to 9 herein and he has been in possession of the
suit schedule property and hence, he is the owner of the
NC: 2024:KHC:8771
suit schedule 'A' property. The Trial Court taking into note
of the pleadings of the parties framed the following points:
1. Whether plaintiff No.1 has made out prima
facie case to get a temporary injunction by
restraining the defendant No.4 from selling
or creating any third party rights, till the
disposal of the suit, as sought in I.A.No.4?
2. In whose favour, the balance of
convenience lies?
3. Who would be put to hardship, if an
temporary injunction is granted or
otherwise refused?
4. The Trial Court having considered the material
available on record answered all the points in favour of the
plaintiffs and granted the relief of temporary injunction as
sought in I.A.No.4. It is not in dispute that there is a
dispute between the parties with regard to grant made by
the Land Tribunal and based on the Land Tribunal order,
khatha has been changed and the order of the Land
Tribunal has been questioned by the vendor of the
appellant herein before the Assistant Commissioner and
NC: 2024:KHC:8771
the Assistant Commissioner allowed the said RRT
proceedings and set aside the earlier entries made in the
revenue records based on the Land Tribunal order and the
order of the Assistant Commissioner is also questioned
before the Special Deputy Commissioner by respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and the same was allowed and the order of the
Special Deputy Commissioner was challenged before this
Court by the vendor of the appellant and also the
appellant in the writ petition and this Court in the writ
petition proceedings directed the concerned to dispose of
the same within a period of three months and the same is
not yet decided and during the pendency of the writ
petition, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have also filed a suit in
O.S.No.161/2019 and the Trial Court taking into note of
the fact that order dated 11.12.1981 passed by the Land
Tribunal with regard to the grant is in dispute and certain
entries are made based on the order of the Tribunal. When
issue is with regard to the title is concerned between the
parties and when the suit is filed for the relief of
declaratory relief, the Trial Court taking into note the said
NC: 2024:KHC:8771
facts, granted the relief only in respect of not to alienate
the suit schedule 'A' property, hence, the order of the Trial
Court is also in order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings
and same was taken note of by the Trial Court while
granting the interim relief of temporary injunction and
exercised its discretion.
5. The counsel for the appellant would vehemently
contend that the very document of Form Nos.7 and 10
itself, the case number has been incorporated and it does
not have signature of the members and President of the
alleged grant committee and further contended that no
such proceedings was taken place. When the plaintiffs
seek the relief of declaration, it is the burden on the
plaintiffs to prove their case by producing relevant
documents before the Court. When the plaintiffs are also
claiming right over the suit schedule property based on the
order passed by the Land Tribunal and when defendant
No.4 had purchased the very same property, the issue
involved between the parties before the Trial Court is for
NC: 2024:KHC:8771
the relief of declaration. When such being the case,
instead of considering the material available on record on
merits, the Trial Court passed an order preventing the
appellant herein in alienating or creating any third party
right. The counsel for the appellant also would vehemently
contend that the appellant will give undertaking before the
Court stating that he will not alienate the property but a
relaxation and modification may be made with regard to
the order passed by the Trial Court and he may be
permitted to pledge the property and avail loan. The said
submission cannot be accepted since the said submission
is nothing but in other way creating a charge on the
property by availing loan and the same again leads to
multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, I do not find any error
in the order passed by the Trial Court since the relief is
also sought for declaration and inter alia sought for the
relief of not to alienate the property. If the property is
alienated when the issue involved between the parties is
with regard to their title, it will lead multiplicity of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8771
proceedings. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal
to reverse the finding of the Trial Court.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The suit is of the year 2019 and the issue involved
between the parties is only with respect to the grant and
claim is also with regard to the title between the
respective parties. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the
Trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible not later than one year from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
