IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 BEFORE THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH 4_ MFA No. 3343 ozrS2oo9k(Cr=iC:}% BETWEEN: SR1. G. MOEAN, S/O. K. GOVINDARAJU. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, _ RESIDING AT NO.8E.,_ 380 CRQSS_,_ % SMBABANAGAR, SRIRAMPURA, BANGALOREV " E ; ;':;APPELLANT (BY SE1';'A'S._\i}:BHA§fr'-&"SEzS B§'1'\/B'xNJUNATz--1, ADVS_) 1.
_ SRI§”‘S.SU_B–RAMANYAM,
” S./O. LATE SR1. MUNISWAMY MUNDAR1.
AGED ABOUT’ 61 YEARS,
_VRE3_IDING AT No.49, 3RD CROSS.
A. _SA1BA_B’ANAGAR, SRIRAMPURAM,
BAEGAxLORE«560 021.
2.” SRI;”v.GUEuRAJ,
* _S;;«’O. SR1. VENKARES}r{WARALU.
AGED ABOUT 4: YEARS,
. RESIDING AT N032, 25″) CROSS.
SAIBABANAGAR, SRIRAMPURA,
BANGALORE
. . RESONDENTS
THIS MFA FILED U/S. 43 OF Hr) OF CPC AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED. 10.11.2009 PASSED IN I.A.NO.4 IN
me O.S.NO.67’O6/2008 ON Tm FILE 014′ THE 1X__ADDL.
(HTY cnnL JUDGE. BANGALORE [CCHEW1&
DISMISSING me {A FILED U/0.39 RULES 1 Ai\E.1:).__2″–VOF
CPCFORTH. -egagfi,1
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOL-l,QWING:V¥’ ‘
J0DGME§g*
This is the plaintifF.§”–~.3ppeal__agai11et’:._;’the “ordered.
dated 10.11.2009 in..O.S. VAN-0v.A.87G6g/20’O’8*von..the 1111»: of
the XI Additional Cit};’Clivi1″‘J1i’dge..”‘éafigalore.
2} suit for specific
perforn1an.ce’1:.l’_o1f to have been entered
into No.1 on 14.03.2008,
wheretinder agreed to sell the suit
prope1″ty in “f:+1_1{otjr of the plairitiff for consideration of
/» and received an advance amount of
.R1é,_5lA,0’Cl[Q.Ql.[=”.agreeing to receive the balance amount
aSu”oI1″‘dat.e of registration. But the 1~’-?’i- defendant
‘filed his written statement specifically denying the
2”-agreement and receipt of the advance as alleged by the
V’ Mlllplaintiff. He further alleged that the signature alleged to
-be of him on the sale agreement is a forged one. The 2″”
3
defendant has purchased the suit schedule property
from the i~’~’1- defendant, his sister and de1ugh.ter:’fd_Vi1–r_l4er
the sale deed dated 08.09.2008 for a
Rs.28,20,000/– and the Khathra».isr theft’
name of the 2″” defendant.
3] In the above eirctnnstanceS,’ suit,
the appellant/ plaintliff and application
under Order XXXIXvARLi.Ie:s praying for
temporali’ l::Vhe'”:2″<* defendant from
changing property by
putting over the same, pending
if it
'Vial. .V"I'l1.e"'"l'Frival Court considering the averment
made in "the application and also the objections
by the W defendant, rejected the
applicaltiovrf, as against which, the appellant has filed
V appeal.
if 5) Sri. S.V. Bhat, teamed counsel appearing for
0 if 2tppe11ant/plaintiff submitted that appellant is the
regjétfi
4
agreement holder. The defendant. No.2 claims that he
has purchased the suit schedule property on
08.09.2008. i.e., much earlier to the filing of thepg-suit by
the appellant / plaintiff. The record reveals
defendant has filedga case in PCR
the file of the 70′] ACMM, b
has not executed any agreCr_§’1ent”of’s.ale
plaintiff and the plaintiff the of the
131 defendant and sale agreement.
He further contendedgggph-get’ referred to
s1-eerarxip-ufa forfiinvestilgation, who registered the
case in ..-and the document is sent to
theyFvorenfsicx’Laboratory for Verification of the signature
tine: reportlflisallso obtained. which reveals that the
on the alleged sale agreement is not of
tlreh 1 81-
Defendant No.1 has filed the Written
fstlaterrrent denying the relationship between the plaintiff
if “and himself and admits that Defendant No.2 has
purchased the suit schedule property under the
registered sale deed from him. The title of Defggndant
No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property..jist:’n’o”tVVin
dispute. Defendant No.2 is the
agreement is concerned, it is .yet-.to be wphilichl’
would be possible only after ré:cor.diAng e=.ridenoe’;_:From
. the materials produced, it is_e~l,ear that ‘lthe’re ‘prima’
facie case made out the” lfl*I’e’1’1-Cegvi the Trial
Court has rightly for temporary
injunction. to interfere
with the the appeal fails
and l I
“‘Tn”View_ofv”th€,<diasmi_ssal of the appeal, the Misc.
Cvl. not survive for consideration.
itvllstancis disposed of.
Sd/~
JUDGE