High Court Karnataka High Court

Dhanalakshmi vs Sri Anthony Muthu on 20 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Dhanalakshmi vs Sri Anthony Muthu on 20 August, 2010
Author: K.Govindarajulu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF' AUGUST 2010
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K GOWNDARuA;jfli:I3U',;~ " 

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL 527 _o1a* '2Soc~9j'~  A " 1

BETWEEN:

1. DHANALAKSHMI,
W/O LATE MARAEAH,
AGE 69 YEARS.

2. M.RAJU
S/O MARAIAH.
AGE 52 YEARS.

s/o  
AGE SLYEARS:    

4. M.CHASND_RLT_'.'- A I
SLATE 

   ..... 

S/'0
AGE 38

 (:3, MA'-BIFTEKAR
 %  S/QLATE MARALAH,
A _    32 YEARS.

A   ....APPELLANTS Nos. 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF



NO.40, HOUSING BOARD, MODEL HOUSE,
SARVAJANIK HOSTEL ROAD.

V MAIN ROAD, 57"" CROSS.
VIDYRANYAPURAM,

MYSORE ~-- 08.

7. VIJAYA K.M.
W/ O J .1\/IOSES,
AGE 43 YEARS,
R/O NO.1753,

12TH CROSS ROAD,

MYSORE.     A

[BY SRI B.M.HALA    ADvs.1

AND:

SRIANTHO1\?Y'I%§£_T:§5TH;I.I,    if 
AGDMAJOR; "    
NO.175S_,   ~  
     
MYSORE._ I  I A  RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.N.R;IGIRISf~:A,» 

.. {TFIIS RSAIS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC

 '*--.AGAISNT  JUDGMENT AND DEOREE DATED
 »2V1;»QV1.2O{}9_¥'ASSED IN R.A.NO.103/2004 ON THE FILE
A"..O.j'?'  I'II'*~A'I)DL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

 VA';=DIS1\/KISSING THE APPEAL AND
COE\_TF§R;i'w'IIN'G THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED
16.08=,19,97 PASSED IN O.S.NO.660/1984 ON THE FILE

  II ADDL.1 MUNSIFF, MYSORE.

 . "      IFTRIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
I   DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



3

JUDGMENT

The case is coming up for admission. By consent,

taken up for final disposal.

2. Legal representatives of defendant

660/ 1984 are the appellants in this appeal’ _

Section 100 CPC.

3. Parties will be referifed accofding ~.

found in the suit.

4. The suit is seeking for

possession– ‘schedule property. In the

schedule the is described as a house

bui].t§:p:oni’~site ine-asuring 7.62 M)E3.st to West and 12.19

__ South situated at Vidyaranyapuram

Extensio1i’;”p*M_xzsore.

Itxsis contended by the plaintiff that Housing

has issued lease cum sale agreement dated

a 2co.f:2.19s2 which is registered on 7.1.1983 in favour of

the plaintiff and that he is paying installments in regard
to the said property. It is further pleaded that the

defendant is related to the plaintiff, in order to

the property, defendant raised a quarrel

possession of the property. S0, pray v.

suit.

6. This case of the this y.re.sijstedfby’Vlthe if

defendants contending_ that ‘.;1efenda’n’t’V4 is an
industrial worker and the property

for more tha1i”««p:,i_’5 Under the

GoVern_rne11t._the house property should

have been favour by the Karnataka

Ho1ising’~Board”.i-Llgefendant has applied for the same.

Rs.100/– as early as 12.3.1980 with

necessary-“.”cei7tificates but according to the averments in

the ‘it is contended that plaintiff is allotted.

2..jifDVe’fen,da’nt submits that the allotment if true is invalid,

and fraudulent, obtained by the plaintiff in

collusion with the Karnataka Housing Board,

Bangalore. The next contention taken by the

is that the Court has no jurisdiction

7. Learned trial Judge. rhasp s uh’

Permitted parties to lead eviderioe: *

examined. Ex.P.1 to P.2Vazj§….rnarked.’ lV’resp’o’nse, ”

original defendant isvexuaminie’d-as ‘VDW1 and-ExEs.D.1 to
13.82 are marked. decreeing

the suit for possessiori, answered ‘_the’ foliowing issues:

proves that he is
._the’d\3.”i1ei* _of._th-e schedule house under
registeredVs’ale’d.eed dated 7.1.1983?

_(_2) ijoes ‘he A;-‘ur’ther proves that he is
A entitiedforpdamages at Rs.50/- p.m.’?

A ‘i«.p’V’5J:.1*iether the defendant proves that this

Courtj..has no jurisdiction to try this suit?

(til the plaintiff is entitled for the
” possession of the schedule property?

At ‘T What decree or order?

(1) Whether the trial court has committed _
any illegality in passing impugnedj”_
Judgment and decree which nee.d’s_”~.._’-~.v
interference of this court? V I’ ‘

(2) What order’?

1) Point No.1 in the negatiife ”

2) Point No.2 as per order ofthe fo11ow§{1:ig:4_ 1

11. Learned advo.cate«.fo*1~VV:.{h–e’ rdepreseintatives
of defendant contend. was the
industrial Worlierij the property for
15 years the circular of the
Goverrirrientf to the Karnataka
Housing. in the meanwhile, plaintiff

has ,p1aye”ci frauddv. obtained the document.

. “contencfthat the Court has no jurisdiction.

siftrration, the reasoning of the learned trial

Judge Con account of the enhancing of the

jnugrisdfiction of the Junior Division Courts, it has

‘jurisdiction is improper. As on the date of the suit, the

if -»v-suit ought to have been instituted in a Court of Civil

Judge, Senior Division. So, pray for allowing the

appeal.

12. It is resisted by the advocate for the

supporting the findings of the learned _

the Courts.

13. The first contention

for the defendant is that the-._defend_a’11t got

allotment but by playing plaintiffltlhasylfggot the
allotment. This submiSiéé’io’nf._loses”it§;,,p significance as the

finding’ specific performance is not
cha11enged«.’oy –the’:_ijdefe_:nd.a.:~1t and it has become final.

One more circ_i1rn.sta.ia.ce”‘ to reject the submission is that

,…,thé’.i§os,itivecase «ofthe defendant is plaintiff has played

the allotment. Not even necessary

elementaryikplleadings are forth coming in the plaint

‘minder -what circumstances the fraud is committed in

. it ‘regard to allotment.

M/’

14. The second ground of attadk is on the
pecuniary jurisdiction. It is settled law that the
jurisdiction of the Court as on the date of the decision of

the case has to be taken. So, as on the date “the

judgment, there is no dispute that the

Judge, Jr. Dvn. had jurisdiction. So,

urged are rejected.

15. Appeal is w1’thout.ar_1y niiexfilt’; irejecgted

at the stage of admission itself.’ _

1:8.m”‘At.:this:7stage..l.”‘1ea1hed'”advocate for the legal
represeritatives ‘:_’the«..de.fe:1dant pray for six months
time to hand over possession of the premises.

ne’d””‘advocate for the piaintiff though

three months time may be granted

laterylagrees accommodate for the request of the legal

“‘represei1t’atives of the defendant.

brnég 2

18. Therefore, legal representatives of up the

defendant are directed to handover the

possession of the property within six ~

today. They shall first deposit thearrears u u

and continue to pay the rents ‘vtrhen

til} the handing over of thevp:ossession_ ofwvpthedproperty. ” V

They shall file an affidavit[underta1;ing éto’v–.va.e’-iate the
premises on or beforekthe’ ‘months period

from today two V’ ”