Karnataka High Court
Sri Umesh H R vs Sri Narayanappa on 22 October, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42357
MFA No. 4446 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4446 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI UMESH H R
S/O SRI. RAMESH C
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.153,
SRI. CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA,
6T CROSS, JANATHA COLONY,
HULIMAVU, B.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 076.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MITHUN G A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. SRI NARAYANAPPA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O KUNTAPPA,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
2. SRI. SURESH KUMAR
S/O. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.116, 4TH CROSS,
JANATHA COLONY, HULIMAVU, B.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B C SRIRAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42357
MFA No. 4446 of 2024
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2024 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.1/2022 IN OS.NO.1375/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU AND ETC.
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 Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed challenging
the order dated 05.06.2024 passed in O.S.No.1375/2022
on I.A.No.1/2022 by the XX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. The main contention of the appellant/plaintiff
before the Trial Court that he had purchased the property
NC: 2024:KHC:42357
from one Murali Mohan in the year 2020. Originally, the
property bearing Sy.No.14 situated at Hulimavu village,
Begur holbi, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 14 guntas
and the same is the ancestral property of Ramaiah @
Ramappa s/o Munivenkatappa. The claimants who are
residents of Hulimavu have sought for re-grant of service
inam land in Sy.No.27 of Nyanappanahalli and Sy.No.53 of
Devarachikkanahalli village attached to Neeraganti office
before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru
against the State and others which came to be allowed on
01.10.1995 holding that application of claimants are
within the appointed date and hence, the Tahsildar has
accepted their claim for re-grant and that the lands are
free from encumbrance except 14 guntas in Sy.No.38 of
Hulimavu village which has been resumed to Government
for alienation in contravention of Section 5(3) of K.V.O
Act, 1961 and the Tahsildar has further stated in his order
that in the amendment to Section 7(3) of K.V.O. Act 1961
(Act 13, 1978) provisions has been made for re-grant of
Service Inam land so resumed to Government to hakdars
NC: 2024:KHC:42357
or to their legal heirs and hence,t he service inam lands
together with the lands resumed to Government has been
granted to the hakdars jointly as listed therein as per their
possession and enjoyment.
4. The original owner Ramaiah @ Ramappa S/o
late Munivenkatappa is also one of the claimant in the
aforesaid case before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South
Taluk, Bengaluru. In the said order, the Tahsildar also
noted that re-grant lands are subject for non-alienation for
a period of 15 years and said order of re-grant is without
prejudice to the tenancy right if any. Therefore, based on
the order of Tahsildar, Ramaiah @ Ramappa S/o late
Munivenkatappa for his domestic and other legal
necessities has alienated the aforesaid property to one
Murali Mohan s/o Muniyellappa who is the vendor of the
plaintiff vide sale deed dated 01.02.2019. On purchasing
of the said property bearing Sy.No.14 from Ramaiah @
Ramappa, katha has been transferred in the name of
Murali Mohan and the said Murali Mohan formed sites and
NC: 2024:KHC:42357
sold the schedule property bearing vacant portion of site
No.3, Assessment No.14, Katha No.14 which is morefully
described as schedule property to the appellant vide sale
deed dated 08.06.2020 and also he is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
5. It is also contention of the plaintiff that after
purchase of the suit schedule property, all revenue records
were transferred in his name and he is in possession and
enjoyment of the property. One Narayanappa S/o late
Kuntappa and his son Suresh Kumar i.e., the respondents
came near the suit schedule property on 10.02.2022 by
bringing JCB and immediately, the appellant called the
police and informed about the same and police arrive at
the spot and stopped JCB and directed the said
Narayanappa to come to the police station along with the
documents. The said Narayanappa and Suresh Kumar did
not go to the police station. Again on 16.02.2022, the
respondents came to the suit schedule property and
caused obstruction. Hence, without any other alternative,
NC: 2024:KHC:42357
the appellant filed the suit for the relief of permanent
injunction, inter alia, sought for temporary injunction.
6. The said suit was resisted by the respondents
by filing counter claim claiming that the property to the
extent of 14½ guntas was allotted in the very same survey
number i.e., Sy.No.14. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that when no phodi work was done and there is a
dispute with regard to the identity of the property, the
Trial Court while dismissing the application for temporary
injunction, rightly comes to the conclusion that the matter
requires trial. It is also the contention of the defendants
that there is no existence of suit schedule property as
claimed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that it is not possible to conclude that the said
document is a bogus and created document as contended
by the defendants and there are grant in favour of two
Ramaiahs' i.e., one is Ramaiah s/o Munivenkatappa and
another one is Ramaiah s/o Kuntappa. Thus, the Trial
Court comes to the conclusion that the property of both
NC: 2024:KHC:42357
the parties are different and issue is with regard to rival
claim made by both the parties and also there is no prima
facie material with regard to identification of the suit
schedule property, it is appropriate to direct both the
parties to maintain status quo. Being aggrieved by the
said order, the appeal is filed before this Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that when the Trial Court
comes to the conclusion that the claim made by both the
parties are distinct properties, ought not to have granted
the relief of status quo. The counsel contends that in view
of the order of status quo, he was unable to put up
construction and continue with the construction. Hence, it
requires interference. The counsel also submits that to
make the counter claim, the defendants have not
produced any documents and when they are not claiming
right over the suit schedule property, there cannot be any
such order.
NC: 2024:KHC:42357
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents contend that there is a dispute with regard to
the identity of the property and the Trial Court rightly
comes to the conclusion that after purchase, the khatha
has been transferred in the name of the father of the
respondents.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties, it discloses that both are claiming
right in respect of Sy.No.14. It is also not in dispute that
the plaintiff claims that property was allotted in favour of
one Ramaiah and the said Ramaiah in turn sold the
property in favour of Murali Mohan who is the vendor of
the plaintiff and site No.3 was purchased from the said
Murali Mohan and description of the suit schedule property
also given. On the other hand, it is the contention of the
counsel for the respondents that property totally
measuring 2 acres 6 guntas and out of that 14½ guntas
was allotted in favour of Ramaiah s/o Kuntappa. Both
NC: 2024:KHC:42357
counsel contend that allottees are Ramaiah but their father
names are different i.e., Munivenkatappa and Kuntappa.
It is important to note that there is no any phodi work;
property also not converted; there is no plan for
construction of the building by the plaintiff; real dispute is
with regard to the identification of the property. Unless,
the property is demarcated and identified, the question of
granting the interim relief does not arise. No doubt, there
is a dispute with regard to the existence of property and
the same has to be considered only during the course of
trial and not at this stage while granting the relief of
temporary injunction. Hence, the Trial Court rightly comes
to the conclusion that both parties have to maintain status
quo since there is a dispute with regard to identity of the
property when both are claiming very same survey
number. When such being the case, I do not find any
error committed by the Trial Court in passing an order of
status quo and if any construction is made, it will change
the nature of the property. Hence, no grounds are made
to reverse the finding of the Trial Court and it does not
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42357
require interference. However, the Trial Court is given
direction to dispose of the matter as early as possible as
there is an order of status quo.
10. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
