- my ;:§«I1.__De$z§i',~Adv.}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA'i'AKA AT
DATED THIS THE mm DAY OF Ji*3L'{;'2{}G9:" T 1
BEFoRE y
THE I-1N'm,E MR. JT_3STIGE_ B.S'REEN1vg$§§ t3bv§f:5A ,
Misceliancous First -é?04?5¥'ef':(CPC1
Miscttllancmls ".3 pf 2008 {CFC}
nmwr.-:33: '
S1111; S3.1ni't11aVB-ai".;__
W/0 V. '71"
Aged about 35 " ._ ' ~
R/at No}.1.5,.. 131 Maii1, Hfi 'ba5;~,
Baxlgaiorefififi O24. »
* V ' ...APPELLAN"'i'
(Common)
1. A
'-W/go we Venkataramana Raddy',
Aggci about 49 years,
;3ri Ravichandra Rccidy,
" 'S/0 late Vsnkataramana Raddy,
Aged about 30 years.
Bath am R/at: No. 179,
15* Floor, Shivaram Campicx,
find Main Road, Hcbba},
Bangalore 560 025.
Ii1£lt;-Legal Inc. Advs. for R 3. m 3
3,; 8111:. V. Saraswathi,
D/0 late Venkataramana Raddy,
W/Q RM. Purztshatham Raddy,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at: No.32', 4&1 Grass,
Vinayaka Nag.-ar, Hebbal,
Barzgaiorrzz 560 024
4. Smt. Frema,
W/0 Ramaiah,
Aged about 53 years,
3:: Ramaiah,
S/0 late Mmfivenkataggpsig; 1
Aged aboxitfifi yeafsg' -- ..
5;}!
$11. Neg. .4 & residing.'
Ai: No. 232,. Siiamiatzfxa Layout,
Sumangali S';-:=Ai:1VA'P.--sI*:1fa1na Road,
Hehbaj;
_§f§39.Iig81()I'?§ 45 {1 G24.
----- IQESPQNDENTS
{Common}
._
A"'««7I'hr:_~s%1:. -:§rIAF'A$ filed under Orclar 43 R1113 Hr) CEPC
'vagajnst. 31¢ order ciated 2O.12.E2S{)7 passed an 15 No.11 & I
réspgecfivcly in (3.8. 1310.858] 06 on the file 3f the E06! Add}.
" '*f"_f§it,y' & Sessions Judge, Baxtxgaiare (CCH 23) ailowing
. _ -Ifi:._N=€};'II fieé unciar Qrder 39 R1136 1 8:. 2 H/W Sectsisan 15}
' ' _.. Q1Pt?3 for temporary injunction.
This appeal {taming on far Admission, this «flay, 1:313
é " Caurt, delivered the folIowix1g:
fig)/.
JUDGMENT
Though thf: mailer is posted for admi$$i§ii;”
consent of learned C3<;u;1$«5':3. appcaiing fo1"'t1*1t:.:_t3.a:fit;icf'::V it is;." . 1
taken up for final ciispesal.
2. For tha purpose of flames are
referred to as they the suwitubcfore the
trial Court.
3. Tiafiseé’ ffhe 3″ glafendant in thfi suit
aggicved u}3_’§f_ f.i1€’~~:iZht3 trial Cltstlrt. dated 20.12.2007
V. If; I’$i*1«:i.._I:’%.*£I respvactively whereby it gantcd an
Grfiézr. _ = mjuncfion restraining the 3113
déf§:f:dafit’.vfif:}§i: putfing up any constructicsn in the suit;
g_ pfoperty CH’ changing the xxatxzm 9f the suit
A pmperty and restraincd the 3″? defendant fmm
V. aiiexxating, encumbeiing or cmating t11in’:1 party rights in
. ‘4 respect at’ the suit scheciuic pmperty pending ciisgnosai 9f
the suit.
4. Br;is*::f facts of the case: areas.1~;n<j?{¢:':V '4 V
The undisputed facts the.»'pafti§.5. aA
residmitial site x 40' Méélongafii tra-
two brothers nafinsziy " VS;.1VcVi»'ashiva– RéV(V1€ly and C.
Venkataramana Redd§r',_ betxzmen them.
There:-, is 11:) –¢.{} __t.:l?ie portion of site falleti
to T-'f 03;” the site fallen to the share
of vén2<ata:aLn:Lafia~~%Ready.
vie; thé of thfi 3″‘ defendant who is in appeal
V Raddy had entered into an
Piaf mile and G.P.A.. in favour of arm Bhuvana
Prakqsh and sold the suit schedule: pmpcrty to him, whc:
V’ = .i_fi:{..’:11rn sold it to defendant 1 Lander :3 rrxgjfitercd sale deed
and defendant 1 in tum scald it in favour {sf defendant :2
1,1:1d€:;* a rwfistcrcd sales”: (lead dateé 29.03.1999 and
dcffindant :3; said the 331116 under a rsgstered sale deed
%
.. ~ trvxicunxbezing, creating the third party rights in
maperty got the huiidixtxg dexneiished, it was_.L*§i;;1§f”
the first tzinze the plaintiffs camvr: 1;§x1§:1ow »
act. of the defendants and i;nmedi:$;te:§§rT fi 1ei’}:1ti’: 1.t ‘i51u:it
seekmg the fallowing rcliefst’ 9 ‘=~ ._
3»)
33)
declaring that m¢.. _§iafi1tjfis absohlte
ownar of t11§:’ ‘~s11it_”sc1;c:5d.;i3.eL’ ‘pmpcrty.
Direct. the p0SStEiSSi{)I1 of
the sc}:1}edu}a-g pmp::§:i;y 122;.) the plaintiffs.
T, {f;01§isE;:;;1¢11fl}<_::dé3C}ar§.{hat the sale cited ciamd
23.?-..:,%Q1.1999 W..he31’i,I1g documant No.BNG{U)
— B:x:T;<;:4%6E;;':9&9s499 and sage deed dated
2?3.G'3:V.:2Qf;)4""-..__ decument NELBLN-1"
V i?:.*7zS.21'/_2£}§)4.–§3'5 are not bindmg an the
*
thircl defendant. from aiienating,
of the suit schedtlic property by way cf
' }§6I*:na11ent: inj axnction.
*3} ” °;
geruscd
fa yam; such other ixftiittf or mlififs as this
H0n’b1c Court deems fit to: gem: in the
circumsiances of the case, in ms interest of
justicxa and aquity.
‘ ‘? , I haw: heard the laamed Counsei far the partiefi and
the iiI11}11$16(§ ardsr. Admittzzciiy <3.
Ve:1katara:I:a1":a Reédy 113$ not. Cxfictltfié any kind Qf salt:
dsed in respect of the suit schedule pr<3per£y "' in
favour of Bhuvan Prakash or in favour cf VT£i:Ei§V»
lasing St), the vaiiclity of the jm; 7
dsfamciant. in favour of End d<3fa&ndaAi1T_€:, 'th:: €'.i:':i'¢féI1(ii$it.'ViI:
favaaur of 3"? defcndant are t:(::' "i':«:%;:_'%e:xamii1.2(fuh.13r':::;t the time
ef trial. Any of the o¥:;$§51::at.ii)I:gs<{ 'abqL1t validity er
athcrvvisc <31' tifye salq pmjudiczt the
i:1terest.of suit on 111<:rit.s. The
plamtiffs r rxairfi « thfi: suit fer recuvering the
posse$sie"1';.__ sfV tV:§1_e ';~fgui§::_"..'L3chad1fifi property fmm the amt
d€:f{:§.:§d.a"I'1t st,ax€:i£:gV__tb.gt he: has come {(3 the possesaion {sf
_ Thcir only gievancc is til} the
f"i$1:2»';:$:s-.a \1' i'1Vji<: s11i1: on méarits the 3rd defendant. should not
be to put. uy C€)I}StI"uCf;iOf1 and he shcjulfi be
'A * feémtajfied frem aliarzatjng the stlit schedui-3 pmperty. I
' find S6136 force in Thfi said centerition of the plainfifis.
'Thfi triai C0111': after examining the firtrima facic: case 0%' the
piaintiffs, rfifaxzing :9 tbs documents produced by the
yiafintiffs as Wall as defendants by i1:'s C{'}I1Si€it3I'€:d erdm'
%
aliewad IA I and IA 11 g*antt:d an order
injunction vzhemby 3'€St1"a.iI1f:Ci the -355 .'_'def;é:Iifi'aii't=V ffdffl V'
put.t'1r;g up any c:0:r1$trL1<:t:i11
schedule property. This ordéaafiisé n1ééi:~’:__ $3?” ‘ V
both the parties. As§L1ch_,I”*$§=tti<3t.. find' 'san}:v"3i11ega1ity,
irreglflarity or $1.31' figfxpugxed inviting
8. ‘Tv¥3a1;1;i$e3. the defendants appr€:h<3;"1ciir1g
that the may a}i€,–I1at.e the suit propxty
rsqufigsted fof a fliréctian. to the parties to maintain status
I V {:1119_.x"§'héL?.s»:1§3;:»i:seif is for posascssion and 1:9 restrain the 3rd
Acfi::§'tir;;:1@;i;f§£"fi7:§fQ;éfig'alienating the suit. schsdulc prcsperty, That
_ 34;}; it :€::a1m<;t baa irxferred that the piainfifis would
H H " .§§ii42.:1at.e'V'tt¢1e suit praperty dtirring flit: pendency of the suit
a§.1df"the:(*(: is 13.9 reason for such an apprehension of the
T dc-iffindants.
%”
Accordingly the: appeals art: CiiSII1iSS’f.t€i as V’
inerit.
Vb}-