Karnataka High Court
Smt Radhika Rani K vs Sri Y V Ranga Reddy on 3 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4806
MFA No. 8686 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8686 OF 2022 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RADHIKA RANI K.,
W/O SRI. RANGANATHA S. BHARADWAJ,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.194,
YASHORADHIKA, 3RD MAIN,
6TH CR9SS, 2ND PHASE,
RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 097.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. Y.V.RANGA REDDY,
Digitally signed S/O LATE Y. PULLA REDDY,
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
Location: HIGH RESIDENT OF NO.12-3-17,
COURT OF 3RD CROSS, SAI NAGAR,
KARNATAKA
ANANTHAPURA,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1
IN O.S.NO.2332/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.27), ALLOWING I.A.
NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4806
MFA No. 8686 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed by the defendant being aggrieved
by the order of the Trial Court dated 25.10.2022 passed on
I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.2332/2022, wherein the application filed by
the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was allowed
restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
The reasons found in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the Trial Court
is with regard to the plaintiff claims possession from the date of
purchase on 23.01.1995. The Trial Court also taken note of the
fact that the plaintiff is in possession since the date of purchase
by putting up the construction, but the NTI society sold the
property to Jethmal Jain, who in turn sold the same in favour of
the defendant. The plaintiff contend that the society was not
having any right and apart from that, they themselves have filed
a suit against the plaintiff in O.S.No.25439/2018 seeking relief
of possession of the suit property against the plaintiff and during
the pendency of the suit, site was sold in favour of its members,
NC: 2025:KHC:4806
the member in turn after getting the sale deed sold the same in
favour of the defendant. The Trial Court having taken note of
the said fact into consideration comes to the conclusion that
when the suit was filed for the relief of possession against the
plaintiff, the question of selling and making an attempt to
interfere with the possession does not arise and hence granted
the relief of temporary injunction.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present
appeal is filed before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that when the property was acquired long back, possession was
taken and compensation amount was deposited, in the plaint an
averment is made that no such award was passed and payment
was made. The said property vested with the society and the
society sold the property in favour of the plaintiff. When the
society itself has filed a suit for the relief of possession against
the very plaintiff, ought not to have sold the property during the
pendency of the suit and the same has been observed by the
Trial Court while passing the order. The said suit is also pending
for consideration and when such material is available on record,
the very contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that
NC: 2025:KHC:4806
they are in possession cannot be accepted when the suit is filed
by the society seeking possession. In the plaint, specifically
sought for the relief of possession, particularly in respect of all
that piece and parcel of residential house bearing No.10, Old
khatha No.581/L, situated at Shanthivana, Sahakarnagar Post,
Bengaluru-92, formed in the acquired land bearing Sy.No.17/6
of Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the respondent is not the member of the Owner's
Association and the order passed by this Court in writ appeal is
not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the same has
to be considered by the Trial Court during the course of
arguments on merits. When such being the case, the Court has
to look into the prima facie case while granting the relief of
temporary injunction and in view of the very suit filed for the
relief of possession, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that
prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff. When such
being the case, I do not find any error in the order of the Trial
Court to interfere with the same and hence there is no merit in
the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:4806
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The miscellaneous first appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The matter is set down for the defendant's
evidence and hence it is appropriate to direct
the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within six
months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
(iii) The parties are directed to assist the Trial
Court for disposal of the suit within six months.
(iv) The Trial Court shall not be influenced with the
earlier order passed by the Trial Court and the
order passed by this Court while considering
the matter on merits.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
