Smt Sakamma vs Smt Vedavathi
2025 Latest Caselaw 3313 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Sakamma vs Smt Vedavathi on 12 August, 2025

                          -1-
                                      MFA No.4053 of 2025
                                  c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
                        BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4053 OF 2025 (CPC)
                      c/w
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3675 OF 2025 (CPC)

IN MFA NO.4053/2025

BETWEEN:

SMT SAKAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATARAMANACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 85, 5TH CROSS,
PUTTENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
K.R. ROAD, J.P. NAGAR VI PHASE,
JP NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 068.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.)

AND:

SMT VEDAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHIDANANDACHARY V.,
R/A NO.175/A, 4TH H BLOCK, GUBBALALA,
NEAR SHANIMATHMA TEMPLE,
BDA LAYOUT, BSK 6TH STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560061.
                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR M., ADV.)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 20.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 2 IN
O.S.NO.6670/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-25, ALLOWING
THE IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF
CPC, 1908.
                            -2-
                                        MFA No.4053 of 2025
                                    c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025




IN MFA NO.3675/2025

BETWEEN:

SMT SAKAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATARAMANACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 85, 5TH CROSS,
PUTTENAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
K.R. LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR VI PHASE,
BENGALURU 560 078.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.)

AND:

SMT VEDAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.175/A, 4TH H BLOCK, GUBBALALA,
NEAR SHANIMATHMA TEMPLE,
BDA LAYOUT, BSK 6TH STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
                                              ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR M, ADV.)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 20.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.6670/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-25, ALLOWING
THE IA.NO. 1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF
CPC, 1908.

    THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                                      -3-
                                                 MFA No.4053 of 2025
                                             c/w MFA No.3675 of 2025



                             CAV JUDGMENT

Both these appeals arise out of Order dated 20th March

2025, passed on IA No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order

XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in Original Suit

No.6670 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional City Civil &

Sessions Judge (CCH-35) at Bengaluru (for short hereinafter

referred to as the "trial Court").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter

are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this case are that respondent-

Smt. Vedavathi, filed a suit for partition and separate

possession of house property bearing number 175/A of

extended Banashankari 6th Phase (Vrushabhavatinagar), 4th 'H'

Block, formed by Bangalore Development Authority ad-

measuring East to West 9 meters and North to South 6 meters

with the House comprising Ground, First & Second floors and

bounded by:

East: site number 194/A;

West: Road;

North: site number 174/A; and South: site number 176/A

4. Along with the plaint, plaintiff filed application under

Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil

Procedure seeking to restrain the defendant, her men, agents,

or anyone claiming through or under her from alienating the

suit schedule property. In support of the application, plaintiff

has sworn to affidavit in which she has stated that after the

death of her husband-V Chidanandachari, she continued to

reside in the schedule property and is in possession and

enjoyment of the same being the sole legal heir and successor

of late V. Chidanandachari. She has also produced the

documents such as Aadhar card, voter's card, gas connection

receipt, and photographs of the schedule property for having

been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

5. When things stood thus, the defendant by colluding

with her other sons, started to harass the plaintiff, and her

sons came near the house and asked to leave the house.

Colluding with her brother-in-laws, Defendant is illegally trying

to sell the house property by without the plaintiff's knowledge

and also trying to encumber the suit schedule property by

forging the signatures of the plaintiff. It is stated that in the

event, if the defendant alienates or encumbers and if the

plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit schedule property or sell

the same, there would be multiplicity of proceedings and on all

these grounds it was sought to allow the application.

6. The defendant has filed memo adopting her written

statement as objection to the said Interlocutory Application. In

her written statement, defendant has stated that the suit

schedule property belongs to the defendant as sole and

absolute owner of the same, and as such, the plaintiff had no

legal right whatsoever, as the plaintiff is neither a family

member nor has anything to do with the defendant. It is

contended that the defendant is no more the owner of the

property and has gifted the same in favour of her two sons, and

the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Late V

Chidanandachari. The plaintiff has not made out any ground to

allow the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read

with Section 151 of CPC and accordingly, sought for dismissal

of the application.

7. On hearing the arguments, the trial Court has allowed

the Application IA No.2 and granted the temporary injunction

as sought for. Being aggrieved by the said order, the

defendant/appellant-Sakamma, has preferred these appeals.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant/defendant:

8. Sri T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned Counsel

appearing for the appellant would submit that the impugned

order passed by the trial Court suffers from perversity and

submits that the trial Court has reached to an erroneous

conclusion that the schedule property stands in the joint names

of the appellant and late V Chidanandachari, contrary to the

pleadings and registered documents on record. This fact is

admitted by the respondent in the plaint, and the suit property

stands solely in the name of the appellant. The registered

documents produced along with the plaint clearly shows that

the suit schedule property stands in the name of the appellant.

The appellant has also produced the property tax receipts along

with the plaint, to substantiate that the property stands in the

name of the appellant. Further he would submit that the Trial

Court has passed the impugned order ignoring the registered

partition deed dated 13th September 2011, which is an

admitted document. This registered partition deed clearly

states that late V Chidanandachari is not allotted any share, but

is entitled to enjoy the usufructs of the share allotted to the

appellant with her consent. The appellant is to hold the share

allotted to her during her lifetime and transfer the same after

her lifetime to V Chidanandachari. In the event

Chidanandachari predeceases her, she would be the absolute

owner of her share, and after her lifetime, the share allotted to

her, shall devolve to her other sons, Sri V Shashidharachari and

Sri V Srinivasachari. It is submitted that the appellant sold the

share allotted to her vide registered sale deed dated 13th

September 2011 and subsequently purchased the property as

the sole and absolute owner. As V Chidanandachari pre-

deceased the appellant, the share allotted to the appellant

became her absolute property and the respondent has no right

to claim the suit schedule property as the successor or as a

legal heir of late V Chidanandachari. It is pertinent to note that

the suit schedule property stands in the sole name of the

appellant and not in the joint names of the appellant and late V

Chidanandachari, as erroneously held by the trial Court. It is

the further submission of the learned Counsel that the trial

Court has failed to consider the contention of the appellant that

she gifted the suit schedule property to Sri V Shashidharachari

and Sri V Srinivasachari vide registered gift deed dated 22nd

December 2023, and she is no longer the owner of the suit

schedule property.

9. He would submit that the trial Court failed to

appreciate the fact that the appellant gifted the suit schedule

property to Sri V Shashidharachari and Sri V Srinivasachari vide

registered Gift deed dated 22nd December 2023, and the

respondent preferred the suit belatedly on 18th September

2024, while the order impugned is passed on 20th March 2025

by the trial Court, whereby the temporary injunction is granted

in a suit filed against the previous owner after a period of more

than one year after the transfer of the suit property by way of a

registered document. The trial Court ought to have appreciated

that the respondent had not established that the balance of

convenience lies in her favour in view of the long lapse of time

since execution of the gift deed.

10. Further, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the

appellant's contention that the suit suffers from non-joinder of

parties. That the respondent has failed to establish that she

would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the interim relief is

not granted. The learned Counsel further submitted that the

trial Court has failed to appreciate the contention of the

appellant that the marriage of V Chidanandachari with Smt.

Dhanalakshmi was dissolved in MC No. 1771 of 2021 by the V

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru vide order

dated 1st April 2021, and the respondent is not the legally

wedded wife of late V Chidanandachari. It was also contented

by the appellant that the respondent has not been divorced

from her first husband and that she cannot claim to be the wife

of late V Chidanandachari by merely residing with him. In view

of the above, the respondent has no interest, right or title over

the suit schedule property. He submits that the impugned

order is passed by ignoring all the material pleadings and the

documents placed on record.

11. Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the

grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. He would

specifically submit that the observations made in paragraph 10

of the impugned order is apparently wrong, illegal, and

contrary to the pleadings of the parties. On all these grounds,

he sought to allow the appeal.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff:

12. As against this Sri Ashok Kumar M, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the

- 10 -

trial Court has appreciated the material on record produced by

the respondent that the plaintiff-Smt. Vedavathi is the legally

wedded wife of late V Chidanandachari and has produced

Original Aadhaar card, Voter card, the original gas connection

receipts, original death certificate of late V Chidanandachari,

medical certificate issued by Abhaya Hospital with regard to

cause of death, death ceremony of late V Chidanandachari and

the photographs. Considering all the materials, the trial Court

has opined that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case that

the balance of convenience lies in her favour and accordingly,

granted the temporary injunction as sought for. He submitted

absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the order

impugned passed by the trial Court. On all these grounds he

sought for dismissal of the appeal.

13. Perusal of the material documents placed before the

trial Court reveals that the plaintiff-Smt. Vedavathi filed Suit for

partition and separate possession of suit property contending

that plaintiff is the wife of Sri Chidanandachari and the

defendant is the mother of said Chidanandachari, who is the

mother-in-law of the plaintiff. The husband of the plaintiff was

suffering from liver related disease and died on 30th October

- 11 -

2023 at Abhaya Hospital, Bengaluru, and his body was

cremated at Wilson Garden crematoria. The plaintiff and V

Chidanandachari had no issues out of their wedlock. Both the

plaintiff and the defendant were residing at the address shown

in the cause title. After the death of her husband, the plaintiff

has been continuing to reside in the suit property, and is in

possession and enjoyment of the same being the sole legal heir

and successor of Late V Chidanandachari. Originally, as per

partition held on 13th September 2011 among the husband of

the plaintiff and the defendant and her other children, viz. V

Shashidharchari, V Srinivasachari and late Padmavathi as per

the document No.1343/2011-12 in office of the Sub-Registrar,

Gandhinagar, two properties were allotted to the joint share of

V Chidanandachari and defendant, for which they became joint

owners. Since the husband of the plaintiff was addicted to

alcohol, in the property document, the name of the defendant

was not continued on behalf of V Chidanandachari, thinking

that he may lose his share of the properties if it is registered in

his name and so that the properties would be registered in the

name of the defendant. However, the husband of plaintiff-V

Chidanandachari would enjoy his share and other income along

with his mother. Later, the defendant and the husband of the

- 12 -

plaintiff sold the said two properties on 05th October 2012 and

purchased a House property bearing No.8 situated at

Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South,

on 31st October 2012. However, the said property was also

purchased in the name of the defendant and the plaintiff and V

Chidanandachari were residing at the said house till her late

husband and the defendant who sold the said property on 17th

January 2019. Out of the sale proceedings of the properties

sold on 17th January 2019 by the plaintiff's husband Late

Chidanandachari and the defendant, they purchased the site

bearing No.175/A, 4th 'H' Block, Banashankari 6th stage,

Bengaluru on 19th January 2019, from one Smt. Prabhamani

and Smt. Manjula vide sale deed registered as document

No.JPN- 1-10215-2018-19, CD No.JPND539 in the office of the

Sub-Registrar, JP Nagar, Bangalore.

14. Initially, the schedule property was proposed to be

purchased in the joint name of plaintiff, finally, the sale deed

was registered in the name of the defendant. When the

plaintiff asked the defendant as to why the same was not

purchased in her name as decided, the defendant had promised

that since his son was an alcoholic and spendthrift, he may also

- 13 -

force the plaintiff to sell the property if the same is purchased

in her name and hence, promised the plaintiff that anyhow, her

son is also the owner of the schedule property along with her,

and after sometime when her son would become normal, she

would transfer the schedule property in the name of her son V

Chidanandachari and the plaintiff. Thereafter, the original

documents of the schedule property were handed over directly

from the previous owners of the schedule property to the

plaintiff and her husband. The defendant also advised the

plaintiff to keep the said original document away from her

husband i.e., V Chidanandachari and asked the plaintiff to

manage the schedule property. It is further submitted that

after they purchased the schedule property, her husband and

the plaintiff constructed a house in the schedule property out of

the sale proceedings accrued from the property sold by Late V

Chidanandachari and the defendant and plaintiff have also

contributed to the construction of the house out of her savings

and after the completion of the construction of the house

building in the year 2019, the plaintiff and her husband V

Chidanandachari started to reside in the schedule property. It is

further submitted that till the plaintiff's husband V

Chidanandachari was alive, the defendant was maintaining

- 14 -

cordial relationship with the plaintiff and his son, and would

always assure the plaintiff that she would not give the share to

her son Chidanandachari, till he gives up his alcoholic addiction

and would transfer the same in the name of the plaintiff at the

appropriate time. After the death of the husband of the

plaintiff, the plaintiff sought for partition of the schedule

property and requested the defendant to give her husband's

share, so that she would lead her life peacefully. But the

defendant kept postponing the partition. Thereafter, plaintiff

came to know about the foul activities of the defendant and her

other sons that she went on postponing the partition of

schedule property on one or the other pretext. The defendant

also started avoiding the plaintiff and was threatening her of

dire consequences.

15. It is further stated that defendant started to show her

true colours by colluding with her other sons, and used to

harass the plaintiff and asked her to leave the house and that

she would be compensated after sometime and further, the

defendant and her other sons were threatening the plaintiff that

she would be thrown out of the house and would make her life

miserable. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant is

- 15 -

     f)   Document     No.20:       khata   and    property    tax
          payment receipt of the suit property; and
                               - 20 -