Karnataka High Court
Sri Indu Shekar Kolluri vs The Bangalore City Chickpet House ... on 7 March, 2025
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
MFA No. 3003 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3003 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. INDU SHEKAR KOLLURI
S/O LATE K. MOHAN NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/A NO.1-150,
SRI. GOWRI MANOHARA
NILAYAM,
BANGARUMITTA,
NEAR 200 FT. BY PASS ROAD,
AVILALA POST, TIRUPATI ROAD,
CHITTOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 507.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed SRI. VINAYAKA B. VISHNU BATTA, ADVOCATE)
by NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE BANGALORE CITY CHICKPET
HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
KV TEMPLE STREET,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. MR. K. GANGAPPA
S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT EREHALLI VILLAGE,
YALLUDU HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
MFA No. 3003 of 2024
GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 209.
3. NARASIMREDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/A EREHALLI VILLAGE,
YALLUDU HOBLI,
GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 209.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. T. PARAMESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:30.01.2024 PASSED ON
I.A.NOS.1 2 AND 3 IN OS.NO.1811/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NOS 1 AND 2
FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND
REJECTING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF
CPC.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.02.2025 THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 25.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 07.03.2025
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
MFA No. 3003 of 2024
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant defendant No.4
under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC for setting aside the order
dated 30.01.2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Bengaluru Rural, in O.S. No.1811/2021, for
granting injunction against the appellant under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for caveator-respondent
No.1.
3. The appellant was defendant No.4 and
respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and other respondents
were defendant No.1 and 2 respectively before the trial
Court. The rank of the parties before the trial court is
retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the respondent No.1-plaintiff before
the trial Court is that the plaintiff - M/s. The Bangalore
City Chickpet House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
(hereinafter referred to as 'Society') filed a suit by
contending that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule
property, having more than 4000 members, and are into
purchasing of lands and forming layouts and distributing
sites to their members. Accordingly, the plaintiff
purchased property bearing Sy.No.40 measuring 1 Acre
situated at Harohalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk, Bangalore from defendant No.1 under a
registered sale deed dated 07.01.2005. The plaintiff is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Mutation
was not effected in the name of the plaintiff since there
was a dispute between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.
Defendant No.1 had alienated some of the sites in the said
property to third parties which need to be cleared for
which they had not got the title of the property transferred
in their name. Defendants No.2 and 3 claiming as original
legal heirs of the vendor's vendor of the defendant No.1
are said to have had initiated revenue proceedings and got
the khata of the schedule property changed in their name
without making 1st defendant as party and challenging the
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
same. The 1st defendant's vendor Mr. Krishnamurthy had
filed a Writ Petition No.24001/2014. Defendant Nos.2 and
3 in order to forgo any further litigation have illegally
alienated the suit property, during the pendency of the
writ petition. Defendant No.4 with ulterior motive based
on the revenue entries has got the property transferred in
his name illegally, and now trying to interfere with
peaceful possession of the plaintiff's property. Hence, the
plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit. Along with the suit, an
I.A. was filed by the plaintiff for injunction. The trial court
granted ad interim injunction. Later, the defendant No.4
appeared and filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule
4 of CPC for vacating the interim order. Finally, the trial
Court dismissed the application filed by defendant No.4
and confirmed the injunction order granted in favour of the
plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.4 is
before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4
has contended that the plaintiff does not have any right
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
over the property. The defendant No.4 claims the title
through one Shyama Rao and Sanjeev Rao, who sold the
property to Muni Reddy on 03.11.1948. Till 1991, the
name of Muni Reddy was continued in the revenue
records. Later, once again, it was restored under
MR/2/2011-12. Subsequently, one Nagappa Reddy, the
son of Muni Reddy, succeeded the property and
thereafter, the property was devolved to his daughter
defendant No.3-Muddamma vide MR No. H5/2015-16
dated 25.04.2014, as Nagappa Reddy's son Hanumantha
Reddy died bachelor. The said Muddamma also expired
and the said property was agreed to sell to defendant No.4
under an agreement of sale dated 22.04.2016.
Thereafter, the regular sale deed was effected on
09.09.2020 by the children of defendant No.3 i.e.
defendant No.2 and his sister Shankaramma. The learned
counsel further contended that the Plaintiff claims property
through one to K. Chinnappa who was said to be sold the
property to Krishnamurthy on 15.02.1962, vide MR
No.8/1991-92 dated 21.05.1992. Thereafter, the property
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
was sold to defendant No.1 - K. Gangappa on 02.04.2004.
Later, the property was sold to plaintiff on 07.01.2005. It
is contended that the title of the appellant-defendant's
property was traced from the year 1948, whereas the title
of plaintiff's property was traced from the year 1962. The
plaintiff was not at all given any possession of the
schedule property as there is dispute between defendant
No.1 and plaintiff and no revenue records were filed to
show that is name mutated in respect of schedule
property.
6. It is further contended that the title of the
appellant-defendant No.4 is traced from 1948, whereas,
the plaintiff's title is from 1962 onwards. There is no
prima facie case made out in favour of the plaintiff. There
is no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and
the plaintiff created documents though not in possession
but obtained an order of injunction. Defendant No.4 is in
possession of the schedule property. Therefore, prayed
for setting aside the impugned order.
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-
plaintiff has supported the order of the trial court
contending that suit schedule property belongs to
Krishnamurthy purchased on 15.02.1962. Thereafter, it
was sold to defendant No.1-Gangappa on 02.04.2004. In
turn, the plaintiff purchased the said property on
07.01.2005 from defendant No.1, who sold the sites to
various purchasers on different dates from 2006 onwards.
Such being the case, defendant No.4 is trying to interfere
with a suit schedule property. He has purchased the said
property from defendant Nos.2 and Shankaramma, who is
the daughter of defendant No.3 sold the Property was on
09.09.2020. Defendant No.3 claimed the property as
ancestral property. The trial Court, after considering the
documents, has rightly granted injunction as against
defendants. There is no need to interfere with the said
order. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal.
8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the parties, perused the records.
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
9. The points that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the plaintiff has made out
prima facie case that it is in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property ?
(ii) Whether defendant No.4 is trying to
interfere with the schedule property ?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is put into
hardship and irreparable loss, if
injunction is not granted?
(iv) Whether the order of the trial court
calls for interference ?
10. On perusal of the records, especially, the
contention of the appellant-defendant No.4 is that he is
said to be purchased the schedule property from the legal
heirs of defendant No.3-Muddamma, i.e. defendant No.2
and Shankaramma-the daughter of defendant No.3, on
09.09.2020 based upon the agreement of sale dated
22.04.2016. It is the further contention of the appellant
that is originally, the land in Sy.No.40 belonged to one
Muni Reddy, who has purchased the same under sale deed
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
dated 03.11.1948 and the said Muni Reddy was none
other than the grandfather of defendant No.3.
Subsequent to the death of Muni Reddy, his only son
Nagappa Reddy @ Nagappa succeeded the said property.
Nagappa Reddy had two children namely Hanumantha
Reddy @ Hanumanthappa and defendant No.3-
Muddamma, the daughter. The said Hanumanthappa, was
a bachelor, who said to be died on 18.06.1986 and
thereby, defendant No.3 became the sole legal heir who
succeeded the property as absolute owner of the schedule
property. The revenue records to the extent of 2 acres 12
guntas in Sy.No.40 of Harohalli village stood in the name
of defendant No.3-Muddamma and it was in exclusive
possession of defendant No.3 and after her death after her
death her children, i.e. Narasimha Reddy (Defendant
No.2) and Shankaramma, who are the children of
muddamma were in possession of Suit Schedule Property.
11. During the life time of defendant No.3-
Muddamma, she had sold the entire land in survey No.40
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
of Harohalli village to defendant No.4 under agreement of
sale dated 22.04.2016 and an irrevocable registered GPA
was executed by defendant No.3 and defendant No.2 and
Shanakaramma, the daughter of defendant No.3, which
was coupled with interest and also delivered the
possession of the property. The entire sale consideration
was paid by defendant No.4 and obtained possession of
the suit schedule property under the agreement of sale in
the year 2016 itself. The son of muddamma i.e.
defendant No.2 and his sister Shankaramma (who is not
party to the suit) had duly consented for the same. On
the demise of defendant No.3-Muddamma, who died
intestate, her children second defendant and one
shankramma inherited the property and from them the
forth defendant No.4 obtained the title of the said property
under the regular sale deed dated 09.09.2020.
12. Defendant No.4 approached the revenue
authority and got mutated his name from defendant No.2
and his sister Shankaramma and he is in exclusive
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
possession of the schedule property. In support of his
contentions, defendant No.4 has produced documents
before the trial court. Per contra, the case of the plaintiff
before the trial Court is that it has purchased schedule
property i.e .1 acre of land in survey No.40 in Harohalli
village from one Gangappa-defendant No.1 on
07.01.2005. The said Gangappa said to be purchased the
property from his vendor Krishnamurthy on 02.04.2004.
It is stated that the said Krishnamurthy purchased
schedule property from one Chinnappa for 15.02.1962.
The plaintiff has not produced any document to show that
Chinnappa was the owner and having title over the
schedule property in order to sell the same to
Krishnamurthy on 15.02.1962. The plaintiff has produced
only the sale deed of Gangappa dated 02.04.2004
purchased from Krishnamurthy. There is no mother deed
produced by the plaintiff in order to show that Chinnappa
was the absolute owner having title over the suit schedule
property in order to alienate to Krishnamurthy in the year
1962. Subsequent to the purchase by Krishnamurthy, he
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
has sold the same to defendant No.1 - Gangappa.
Immediately, within a year, the said Gangappa defendant
No.1 sold the property to the plaintiff-Society. The
plaintiff, without considering and verifying the original title
deed of the land in question, purchased the property,
based upon the sale deed of Krishnamurthy. No other
documents or any revenue records were produced before
the trial court to show that the said land was purchased by
Krishnamurthy in the year 1962 and also to show that the
possession was continued in his name till 1992.
13. It is in the year 1992, Krishnamurthy said to
have tried to obtain records in 1992 as per MR No.8/1991-
92 that too after the purchase of property from Gangappa.
There is no document to show for flowing of title or
possession from the vendor of Chinnappa and there is no
document to show that Krishnamurthy was in possession
of the property from 1962 to 1992 for almost 30 years.
Subsequent to the change of name of Gangappa the first
Defendant from Krishnamurthy, defendant No.3 -
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
Muddamma filed an application before the Tahsildar and
got mutated in her name. Subsequently, the plaintiff
approached Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal
against the mutating the name of the plaintiff which came
to be dismissed and the plaintiff also filed a revision
petition before Deputy Commissioner under Section
136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act which also came to
be dismissed. The writ petition is said to be filed before
the High Court by the plaintiff's vendor's vendor
Krishnamurthy. Therefore, claiming the property by the
plaintiff from its vendor defendant No.1-Gangappa and his
vendor Krishnamurthy is not acceptable at this stage. The
plaintiff has also not produced any records to show that its
vendors were continued to be in possession from 1962 till
1992. Even after the purchase of the Property by the
plaintiff, the Revenue records were not transferred in the
name of the Plaintiff.
14. On the other hand the title of the defendant
No.4 is traced from 1948 from Muni Reddy vide sale date
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
dated 03.11.1948. After the death of Muni Reddy, the
property devolved on his only son Nagappa Reddy and
after death of Nagappa Reddy, his two children
Hanumantha Reddy and defendant No.3-Muddamma
succeeded to the schedule property. Hanumantha Reddy
died in the year 1986 and he was bachelor and issueless.
Therefore, defendant No.3-Muddamma became the
absolute owner of the schedule property of Muni Reddy
measuring 2 acres 12 guntas. The said Muddamma
continued to be in possession along with her children from
1986 onwards and she executed an irrevocable GPA and
an agreement of sale on 22.04.2016 in favour of
defendant No.4. Subsequently, the children of Muddamma
Defendant No.2 and his sister have executed regular sale
deed in favour of defendant No.4 on 09.09.2020.
Mutation also stands in the name of defendant No.4/the
appellant, which was challenged by the plaintiff's vendor,
but they failed, which clearly reveals that there is no prima
facie case in favour of the plaintiff in order to show that it
is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
property from 2005 onwards. The plaintiff has not
produced title deed of the Vendor's vendor Chinnappa as
to how he became the owner of the property, which is not
known to them. Therefore, when the title documents and
revenue records are not produced, the question of flowing
title and possession to the plaintiff does not arise. On the
other hand, the defendant No.4 is able to show that he is
in possession of schedule property by way of sale deed,
having purchased from the successor of Muni Reddy, the
Munni Reddy the said Muni Reddy purchased the property
of 2 acres and 12 guntas in the year 1948 itself. Such
being the case, the contention of the learned counsel for
respondent-plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession of the
schedule property cannot be acceptable.
15. That apart, it is also stated by the plaintiff's
counsel that defendant No.4 had sold some sites. The
revenue records were not transferred to the plaintiff's
name. Such being the case, the question of claiming
possession over the property by the plaintiff is not
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
acceptable one. When defendant No.4 is in possession of
the schedule property under the regular sale deed and
prior to that an agreement of sale and irrevocable GPA
executed by defendant No.3, in 2016 itself and she was
the successor of Muni Reddy. Hence, the balance of
convenience not lies in favour of plaintiffs rather the
balance of convenience is in favour of defendant No.4.
16. As regards to hardship and irreparable loss,
defendant No.4 is able to show that he is in possession of
the schedule property and his vendors were the original
owners of the property purchased in the year 1948 and
show title from 1948. and obtained the title 1948. The
revenue records also stood in the name of defendant No.3
and thereafter, in the name of defendant No.4. The
revenue records reveal the presumption of possession in
favour of defendant No.4 as per Section 133 of Karnataka
Land Revenue Act. Therefore, if injunction is not granted,
no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
whereas irreparable loss would be caused to the appellant-
defendant No.4.
17. Therefore, considering the evidence on record
and the documents produced by both parties, I am of the
view that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the
documents on record and has simply stated that the
matter is required for full-fledged trial. when, the sale
deed produced by the plaintiff itself does not confirm the
right over the property when the title of the vendor's
vendor is not produced. Therefore, the matter definitely
requires full-fledged trial, but for the granting any relief of
injunction in favour of the plaintiff. the available material
placed on record does not make out prima facie case in
favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial court has
wrongly held that there is prima facie case in favour of the
plaintiff, when in the suit filed for declaration and
injunction, the defendant is able to show that he is in
possession. The plaintiff is required to seek possession
also. Therefore, when the possession is with defendant
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
No.4, the question of granting injunction in favour of
plaintiff does not arise. Therefore, on this ground, the
order of the trial court is required to be interfered.
18. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the
view that the plaintiff has failed to show prima facie case
and the balance of convenience in its favour and it has
also failed to show the interference of the appellant-
defendant No.4 over the schedule property. On the other
hand, the appellant-defendant is able to show that he is in
possession over the schedule property and title flowing
from his vendors. Such being the case, the revenue
records also stands in the name of appellant-defendant
No.4. Therefore, the question of granting injunction in
favour of plaintiff does not arise. The possession over the
schedule property is also not sought by the plaintiff in the
suit. Therefore, the order of the trial court is perverse and
capricious and is liable to be set aside.
19. Accordingly, I pass the following order :
(i) The appeal is allowed.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9868
(ii) The order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, in O.S.
No.1811/2021, for granting injunction against the
appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, is here
by set aside and the application of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
CS
CT:SK
