Karnataka High Court
Y Anjinappa vs Sri Muniyallappa on 4 November, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
MFA No. 2939 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2939 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. Y. ANJINAPPA
S/O LATE YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. PREETHAM A.,
S/O Y. ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
AND MOTHER RENUKA B.,
W/O Y. ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1880, 59TH CROSS
RENUKA NAGARA,
SARJAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M ANEKAL TQ, BANGALORE-562 125
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MUNIYALLAPPA,
S/O LATE YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
2. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE YALLAPPA
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
MFA No. 2939 of 2024
3. SRI. Y. SRIRAMALU
S/O LATE YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
4. SMT. AVALAMMA
D/O LATE YALLAPPA
W/O BALARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
5. SMT. PADMAVATHI
W/O LATE S.Y. SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
6. SMT. CHANDINI
D/O LATE S.Y. SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
7. SRI. PRAJWAL
A/O LATE S.Y. SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
RENUKA VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE-562 125
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASWATHANARAYAN S.N., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1, R2 AND R4 TO R7 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W,
V/C/O DATED 02.09.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.
2 IN O.S.NO. 1527/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
MFA No. 2939 of 2024
I.A. NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission.
Heard Shri R.Kalyan, learned Counsel for the appellants-
plaintiffs and Shri Aswathnarayan S.N., learned Senior Counsel
for respondent No.3.
2. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed challenging the
order dated 27.04.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 3 in
O.S.No.1527/2023 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Anekal, dismissing I.A.No.2 and disposing I.A.No.3 and
vacating the interim order granted earlier.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before
the trial Court are, the plaintiffs filed a suit in
O.S.No.1527/2023 seeking the relief of partition claiming 1/6th
share in the suit schedule properties. One Yallappa was
married to one Gowramma and through the marriage, they had
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
six children namely Muniyallapa, Gowramma, Y.Sriramulu,
Avalamma, S.Y.Srinivasaiah and Y.Anjinappa. The said
Anjinappa is the appellant before this Court. The brother of
the plaintiff No.1 S.Y.Srinivasaiah is no more and his legal
representatives are made as defendants No.6 and 7 to the suit.
The properties bearing Sy.No.132/P3 measuring 3 acres,
Sy.No.132/P4 measuring 3 acres, totally measuring 6 acres,
presently the same are renumbered as Sy.No.132, situated at
Alambadi Village, Lakkur Hobli, Malur taluk, Kolar District are
the properties of the plaintiffs and defendants who are the joint
owners and in peaceful possession of the same. The property
bearing Sy.No.123, measuring 2 acres 4 guntas, Sy.No.124
measuring 4 acres, both the survey numbers together
measuring 6 acres 4 guntas situated at Gudigattahalli Village,
Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal taluk, property bearing Sy.No.40,
measuring 15 guntas situated at Chikkadunnasandra Village,
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, property bearing Kaneshumari
No.1313, property No.725/1B, measuring East to West 92 ft.
and North to South 58 ft., property bearing Kaneshumari
NO.1112, property No.647, measuring East to West 25 Ft. and
North to South 40 Ft. both the properties situated at Sarjapura
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
Village, Anekal Taluk are the ancestral and joint family
properties of the plaintiffs and defendants.
4. Out of the joint family income and out of the sale
proceeds of the ancestral properties, the plaintiff No.1 and
defendants No.1, 3 and Srinivasaiah had purchased item No.1
and 2 of the schedule properties under a registered sale deed
dated 28.01.2006 and 06.03.2006 respectively. Ever since the
date of purchase, the plaintiffs and defendants are in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs and
defendants are having right and share over the suit schedule
properties. Defendant No.3 who is having worldly knowledge
and having political background was managing the joint family
affairs and after the death of yallappa, plaintiffs and other
defendants were having trust and faith in defendant No.3 but
he has misused and mismanaged the joint family properties.
Therefore, on 13.10.2023 the plaintiffs approached defendant
No.3 demanding partition and allot their share in the suit
schedule properties but defendant No.3 refused to effect
partition. It is also contended that the plaintiff No.1 is suffering
from mental illness and is on regular treatment in NIMHANS
Hospital, Bangalore. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a suit for
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
partition before the Senior Civil Judge at Anekal. Along with
the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule
1 and 2 of CPC seeking ex-parte order of temporary injunction.
The trial Court passed ex-parte order of temporary injunction
restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule
properties until further orders. Defendant No.3 filed the
I.A.No.3 under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the order of
temporary injunction. The trial Court by the impugned order,
dismissed I.A.No.2 and disposed of I.A.No.3 and vacated the
interim order of temporary injunction. Hence, this appeal.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants/plaintiffs is that defendant No.3 in the written
statement has not disputed the relationship between the
parties but has disputed the status of the suit schedule
properties. Defendant No.3 has contended that he is the
absolute owner of the property bearing survey No.123 and 124
totally measuring 6 acres 4 guntas and he has purchased the
same out of sale proceeds received from the joint family
properties. The other family members have also received their
share of sale proceeds which they have invested in purchasing
different properties which are not the subject matter of the
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
suit. Learned Counsel contends that whether item No.2 was
purchased out of his share or out of the joint family nucleus can
be decided only after holding full-fledged trial. The trial Court
without considering all these aspects has come to the
conclusion that plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. The
learned Counsel would further contend that defendant No.3 in
his written statement has contended that joint family status
came to be severed on 25.03.2009 the date on which
compromise petition was filed in O.S.No.1919/2006. It is also
contended that suit schedule properties are not the subject
matter of suit in O.S.No.226/2020 and the said suit is filed by
defendants No.2 & 4. The defendant No.3 was mismanaging
the joint family and ancestral properties being the Kartha of the
joint family and he has refused to effect partition and there is
no iota of material before the trial court to prove that there was
already a severance of joint family and the trial Court ought not
to have rejected the application. Learned Counsel also brought
the attention of this Court to para 9 of the impugned order
wherein discussion was made for having shared the sale
proceeds when the property was sold on 12.01.2006 but the
trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that plaintiffs
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
have not made out any prima-facie case and committed an
error in dismissing the application.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3/defendant
No.3 vehemently contended that defendant No.3 had filed a
detailed statement of objections and brought to the notice of
this Court the sale deed dated 12.01.2006 wherein joint family
property was sold and all family members have received their
share. Out of sale proceeds, defendant No.3 has purchased
the property in item No.2 and the same is an independent
property and the trial Court also having considered the
documents in detail, vacated the interim order granted earlier
and it does not require any interference.
7. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice
of this Court the joint development agreement which came into
existence on 03.05.2024 in respect of item No.2 of suit
schedule properties which was purchased out of sale proceeds
of document No.2 and considering all these aspects, the trial
Court has vacated the interim order.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants
and also the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3, both
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
the parties do not dispute the execution of sale deed dated
12.01.2006 i.e. document No.2 filed along with statement of
objections by respondent No.3/defendant No.3. It is also not
in dispute that sale consideration was shared among the
members of the family vide sale deed dated 12.01.2006.
Learned Counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this
Court para 3 of the written statement wherein, there was an
admission with regard to the Survey No.132/P3 measuring
3 acres and Survey No.132/P4 measuring 3 acres, totally
measuring 6 acres, being the joint properties. When defendant
No.3 admits that it is a joint property, the trial Court ought not
have rejected the application. He further contends that other
sisters have also filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.1919/2006
and same was compromised on 28.03.2009 wherein plaintiffs
and defendant No.3 are also parties to the said compromise
and the properties which have been subject matter of the said
suit are different and not the suit schedule properties.
9. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession
and it is the prima-facie contention of the respondent No.3
/defendant No.3 that whatever sale consideration he has
received in terms of document No.2, he has purchased the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
property and except items No.3 and 4, other properties are not
the joint family properties. No doubt, learned counsel for the
appellants would contend that there is no severance of joint
family and there was no partition and respondents have not
placed any document to the effect that there was a partition in
respect of other family properties. However, The trial Court
having taken note of the fact that family members received
their respective share when the property was sold on
12.01.2006 and there was no earlier partition among the
members of the family and the fact that on 28.01.2006, family
members have jointly purchased the property and there was
another sale deed dated 06.03.2006 in respect of the property
purchased by defendant No.3 and the same stands in the name
of defendant No.3 and in respect of the said property only, joint
development agreement came into existence on 03.05.2024
and having taken note of the fact that item Nos.3 and 4 are the
properties belonging to joint family and item No.1 belongs to
different persons who have purchased the property on
28.01.2006 and when such material is available before the
court and also taking note of total sale consideration amount of
Rs.28,87,500/- given to defendant No.3 and a sum of
Rs.25,00,000/- given to defendant No.1 and a sum of
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
Rs.25,00,000/- given to plaintiff No.1 and also when the
defendant No.3 took the specific contention in the written
statement that out of sale proceeds only, his brothers had
made different properties as per their convenience and also the
trial Court having made an observation that plaintiffs leaving
other properties purchased by other brothers, sought partition
only in respect of property purchased by defendant No.3 and
also taking note of the fact that defendants No.2 and 4 have
already filed O.S.No.226/2020 seeking the relief of partition
against their brothers, comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs
have not made out a prima-facie case and rejected the
application.
10. Having considered the reasoning given by the trial
Court and also considering the fact that all the family members
have shared the sale proceeds in the light of the sale deed
dated 12.01.2006 and specific defence is also taken by
defendant No.3 that he has purchased the property out of his
share on account of sale made on 12.01.2006, and also
compromise having entered into in the earlier suit in
O.S.No.1919/2006, I do not find any error committed by the
trial court in dismissing the application in respect of item no.2
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
is concerned as the same is prima-facie standing in the name of
defendant No.3. The other property in item No.1 is standing in
the name of other family members and item Nos.2 and 4
belong to the joint family property and there was no document
to prove the fact that there was a partition in respect of item
Nos.3 and 4, and though defendant No.3 claims that there was
a partition, nothing is placed on record, it is appropriate to
modify the order of the trial Court not to alienate the properties
in respect of item Nos.3 and 4 till the disposal of the suit.
Further, it is appropriate to direct the trial court to club both
the suits in O.S.No.1527/2023 and O.S.No.226/2020 filed for
partition together and dispose of the same.
11. In view of the foregoing discussions, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The order of the trial Court dated 27.04.2024 passed on
I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.1527/2023 is modified and interim
order of temporary injunction is granted in respect of
item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties are
concerned.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44105
iii) The observations made by this Court shall not influence
the trial Court while adjudicating the matter on merits.
iv) The trial Court is directed to list O.S.No.1527/2023 before
the very same Court where O.S.No.226/2020 is pending
and dispose of both the matters together.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
YN
