WP 8308/ 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY or NOVEMBER, 20
BEFORE ..
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE B.S.PA'1'I'I;:: ed' "
W.P.No.8308/2008 (-Gmaepg db I by
BETWEEN: A' 'T
Sri V.Krishnappa.
Since deceased by L.Rs.
Sri K.Ganesh,
S/0 late V.Krishnappa. ;
Aged about 30 years, '
R/at Kava1ahosaha11ivVi11a;._ge, ' _
Kasaba Hobli, Ifaluk, 4'
Bangalore ' PETITIONER
[By Sri v,"s(ishwana"ta:;-._ ' '
AND:
1. Sr1.'f§&f'ei11w:atac¥i;2t-1aV1:)t')a,
' _ S/'9 'S11-sD0vddavenk'ataramanappa,
. Aged about 7'~l years,
S/Ho Venkataehalappa,
Aged ab0ut"41 years,
AS'ri_.Manj..11r1atha Reddy,
S / 0jSm' Venkatachalappa,
Aged about 36 years,
-"Sri Srinivasa Reddy,
S / 0 Sri Venkatachalappa,
Aged about 31 years,
Sri Babu Reddy.
S/o Sri Chandrappa,
Aged about 31 years,
Sri Nagaraja Recldy,
S/o Sri Chandrappa,
Aged about 26 years,
Sri Venkatesh Reddy,
8/ o Sri Chandrappa,
Aged about 22 years,
Respondents 1 to 7 are
R/ at Kavalahosahalli Village,
Siddi Hoskote Post, V = *
Kasaba Hobli, Anekal 'i'~:-1_1i':k, ; V. "
Barlgalore District. " "
Smt.Rukmifiiya_:rrima @ __ it
Rukkarnmée T._ it '
Aged about 61. years. " ._
W/o late V.K1€:;hr1appa.,,¢"«~.o_
R/at K;aValahosahfal1i,»a, = l
Kasaba' Hobli, Anekal.
Bangalore e.Distric't_. '
Smtgsulmithral "
- WV/o 'Sri'AGaj.encEral Ready,
» ged abo-.ut_4'a£- years,
it " '
R/.ateAVy3rappa Nagara.
Hoodi Vill"age',y, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore" 'District.
"31nt.Sijyarna @ Lakshmamma,
W/oA;Sri Jagadish Kumar N.,
..Agec1 about 41 years,
11.
R/at J igani Village 8: Post,
l V' 'Jigani Hobli, Jigani 1nd1.By--pass Road,
JB1 Bricks, Anekal Taluk.
Nagaveni,
W/o late Srinivasa Reddy,
WP 8308 /2008
WP 8308 / 2008
Aged about 31 years.
R] at Kavalahosahalli,
Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District.
12.Srnt.Vedavathi,
W/o Sri C.Krishna Reddy.
Aged about 29 years,
R/ at Bandenallasandra Village, '
Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, 1
Bangalore District.
13.Sri Srinivasa Reddy,
S/o Sri Hanurnanthappa,
Aged about 46 years,
14.Sri Ananthanarayana,
S / o H.Nagaraja Reddy, V
Aged about 46 years, --
Respondents' ~13 8:i:;,l.4 are-__ A
residing at K"aV;alho3sahal1i,_
Kasaba Hobli, A11§{:k.ai»,Ta11,1I{*, A '
Bangalore District; V. " RESPONDENTS
[By Sri for
M/s. ymdo Legal I'nc_.,, Advs. for R1 - R4,
" " M/s.{3._.R. 2;; 0.3;. Asst's;i,~~Advs. for R5-R7,
S,mt,V.N.R.Asst9.. Advs. for R5-R7
'--vRS=, R11, "Rg1'3_'& AR14 -- served 8: unrepresented
R9 is'_serve'd,thzo-ugh paper publication)
petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Consi;itu"tion of India, praying to quash the order dated
"0§3."l1s,.2006, passed by the I Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge,
A lBar1.gal"cre Rural District, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous Appeal
__jfile~ri by the respondent in MA No.10/O5, against the order
'f"-odated 28.01.05, passed by the Hon'ble I Addl. Civil Judge
--«._'{Sr".Dn.], Bangalore Rural Dist. On i.A.No.i in O.S.No.455/O4,
_ gffiled by the deceased petitioner herein, vide Annexure--H and
further be pleased to confirm the order passed by the Trial
Court on i.A.No. 1.
WP 8308 / 2008
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing 'B'
Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. Order dated 08.11.2006 passed by the
M.A.No.10/2005 by setting aside the=o’1*der d4a£¢§:iieeé,eoo’1l.’u2oo5
granting an order of temporary injunot.ion.’_’ in
by the learned 1 Addl. Civil Juc1g’e..V_p{Sr.f1i.Z)n,_).’ Bii’f1gfi:l0FGw Rural’-if
District. Bangalore, is called in qu.e–stionl’in this WTl\t petition.
2. Plaintifflpetitioner i:;’1.gVQtit~i;_1Vtel(i the suit
O.S.No.455/200:«_il’ip;i1″‘respe:;t~’;of”:three___..l.items of property
describedllsleparatgiynliifi plaintlvfvschedule as A. B 8: C
properties}. He was the absolute owner of the
said propertyflin actual pofssession of the same. The allegations
hini.__werelllthatthe defendants were trying to interfere
.l’Wi’iiihisA possessi’on by cutting and removing the trees. He has
alsosought relief of damages in a sum of Rs.50,000/-
p for illelgodllyxcutting and removing the standing trees in the lands
A in eiuestion.
The Trial Court, on an application filed under Order
-. Rules 1 81 2 CPC, granted an order of temporary
injunction against the defendants restraining them from
i’
WP 8308/ 2008
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs
in respect of three items of suit schedule properties.
4. In the appeal filed before the learned I _
Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, in -,
the defendants–respondents herein restrictedv
only ‘C’ Schedule property. No challenge. made ,
of temporary injunction granted _xfav_ourV”of plaintiff-writ
petitioner in respect of ScheduleA:.r§zvC”‘B._V_p.ro’perties.H Cespite the
same, the First Appellate correctness of the
order in respect2_”ofi;he erl-tire s’uit”‘pro*perties and has reversed
the order V”Court and dismissed the
application’ filed Rules 1 at 2 CPC.
iipearned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the
A’*__ordVer» gra.nting,:ternporary injunction in respect of Schedule A &
attained finality and the plaintiff had
–Vrestricted”—-h’is’claim only in respect of C schedule properties, the
it “;C¥ou1>t.p_below was not right and justified in upsetting the entire
._]_or’der.° in the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the
vfilpetlitioner submits that he will not press his application under
S. Order XXXIX Rules 1 8: 2 in respect of C schedule property and
this Court may modify the interim order of temporary
pt”
W?’ 8308/2008
6
injunction granted by the Trial Court confining it only to A & B
schedule properties by allowing the Miscellaneous Appealllfiled
by the defendants, by setting aside the observations”r:1ad.el__lo§r
which will have serious effect on the merits of .,
on the temporary injunction granted inllrvelspecgt’
schedule properties.
6. Learned Counsel for the re’s.p:o’ndents— lorderf
under challenge.
7. Upon hearing the learned parties and on
careful consideratilcsnjlof the materials l-:o’n..1T..€:eord, I find that the
submission inladevbyf vCo.ur1sel’ for the petitioner is just and
proper. It from ” paragraph 4 of the order passed in
defendants~respondents herein had
Vl’.Sp{‘%Cifl.Q811S7″.f(3’$ffi,Ct€d their claim in the appeal to only C
sclrieléiuiell They have allowed the order of temporary
~injuncti.oriV.ggranted, to operate in respect of A & B schedule
if ll_properties.l Therefore, the lower Appellate Court was not right
.fj_and:jlustified in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff-
T ‘fipetitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 81 2, in its entirety. The
f if defendants are entitled to the relief only to the extent as sought
by them in M.A.No. 10 / 2005 and nothing more than that.
A/’
WP 8308/ 2008
8. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of allowing
M.A.No. 10 / 2005 and Vacating the order of temporary injnnetion
granted by the Trial Court in O.S.No.455/2004, qrgriyigi gar.
as it relates to C schedule property. The..::g:rantilng..
temporary injunction in respect of A
left undisturbed. The observations ma’cl_el’by thfslxgonrts
shall be confined only for the of theluapplioation and
shall not affect the consider’atior.iAlon the Iriain matter.
pweppbpéjwymnj lsé/;
l:lJlblf* EEDGE