High Court Karnataka High Court

B J Prema vs B J Suma on 14 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
B J Prema vs B J Suma on 14 October, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQ}§§)".__

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER'   _

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'FI1é3E ;9;A_1s:AN:jA  4'   X 
M.F.A.No.634o,_g_:_>F 2oa%4{cPcg% 1f % '  

BETWEEN:

I

B J PREMA _ «._

W/{} M MAHADEV  ~

AGED 42 YEARS  '
R/O NO. I:2'?,4'I'H MAIN. . 
CHAMARAJ PET. I ' ~

BzBgI€"GAL.§3iRE-éiao 0'1s,'-  APPELLANT

(By S1'i:A G__'.§HIV;'1NEf_¥A', VADVGCATF. }

AND :

1

as SLIaMA.  w  -
.;,w/0 M CHANDRASHEKAR

 "AGED ABOUT 3'6"YEARS

R/Q I~I_O'.~B 57

V' " ~ vRAM'A§{I?1SHNAPURA,IIIRD CROSS

SUB'F,DARGHATRAM ROAD

.  'BAp:G§x;.c;RE*s60 009.

 NAQARATHKAMMA

W/G LATE B K JAYARAM

:  AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
"gNO.38,SANNIDI-II ROAD
' 'ABASAVANAGUDI

BANGALORE-«S60 004.

B J HEMA
W/O SURESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O NO.29,Ii FLOOR
121%; MAIN, 19:1' BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE--56O 010.



4 B J SHASHIKALA

W/ O NEELAKANTA

AGED ABOUT 2'? YEARS

R/O NO.2,6'I'H MAIN

TATA SILK FARM    I u  
BANGALOREPSGO 028.  F[ESPO1'3L3EN"i'¥S -  '-

(By Sri: M N BALAKRISI-{NA FOR C/R1   
Sri.B.V.GANC}IREDDY mp R«1.TO.__13-4) 

MFA FiLEI) U/O XLIII oFe'ePc1AGAI'§~es'r 'Ti-iE}ORDER
DA'I'ED:1'7.6.2004, PASSED ONAdI.--A.._A "I-N "Q.S.NO.'1558_1'/03 on
THE FILE 09* THE XXVI_II'V~._AD_DL.C;I*?Y. CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO
HALL, BANGALORE (ccH.H0.29;.,, ALLOWIANGATHE LA. FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN U70 139_.~R"1.'.fis  R/W sec 151

OF CPC SEEKING AN OR£).I:’3R-OF TEMPORARY’ ETNJUNCTION.

This apps? a:’;’i;’¢omVV:”;ng€i_ en this day, the

Court, delivexed.tiie’–.f(:Iiowfiij:1g:V’:’V_

The appelia.-fit,’ 2??-__defe11ddant has been restrained
_ the ” «schedule property pending

diepgsaf f of Therefore, she has filed this

As’ eduld be seen from the pleadings and the

‘4″_’ji~1x_1′;,~’.:’:;1§i3ed’AA()rder, plainfifi and defendants 2 to 4 are the

. ‘ –~.de1§§hfers ef late B.K.Jayaram and 13′ defendant is the

imother of plainfifi’ and defendants 2 to 4. The father of

the parties namely B.K.Jayaram had acquired nlajnt B

W’ xm -5,. Kg» q

schedule property under family ”

schedule property was his self acquired ‘V

Jayarem had gifted property 4Np.”.,38«,’

Road, Basavanagudi, meastm

223/2 and North to South V(4:5j%*,56)V]2~– to
the remaining portion A j’ teeeteitxa side
was gifted to 3″‘ defentvtitatnt’ deed. Late
Jayaram died era? tieath, plaintiff
and defendafitefl his estate.

It obtained regstered
sale and did not pay the

agreed _ sale tttteatisiderettieift. The Zfld defendant had

aobtairietd deeiiiiients from W defendant. Based

L£ppi€:__. ” 2nd defendant is claiming

ownereixip.-ef entire ‘B’ schedule property. The

jg-f4p I2-.it1t;|’iT ieventifled to 1/5 share in plaint ‘B’ schedule

u 3. The 23*’ defendant filed ebjections inter alia

contending that 3″?’ defendant has sold to 2*” defendant

ILL

4

portion of ‘B’ schedule property gifted to her

valuable consideration of Rs.15.00 lakhs _

ageement of sale.

By executing registered genera.1_-

and an agreement of –

requested 2114 defendant to sehedule
properties. The 2nd Vdeiendarggt heeeiibieontended that
plaintiff and ot:1f1er__ defer1da_i’its”haveieoiiiided to harass

23¢ defendent§;». ‘V In

4. on consideration of the

pleadings filed by the parties has held

.’ it gifted a portion of property

favour of plaintzifi’ and the remai;m’ng

pofi;§onV___vi11 of 3rd defendant. Late Jayaram died

3.999. The plaintifi’ and defendants 1 to 4

succeeded to the remaining portion of the

bearing No.38, Sannidhi Road, Basavanagudi

V and the A schedule property. 1,

do not find any grounds to interfere with ..

order

Accordingly appea1isVdi$misSer;i.”-

Cm/_ ..