'2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HOi\E'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA A-
WRIT PETITION NO.15271/.2010.(G?9é¥Ci'Pe)»'
BETWEEN:
G.Sri Ramappa,
S/0. late Gopalappa,
Aged about 58 years,
Resident Of Chinna kOte.,Vi'..lag-.3,
Robertsonpet Hobli, ' 'L
S.G.K.F. Post, V " ._ A
Bangarpeth Talvuk,' _ _ -
Kolar District.
PETITIONER
(By Sri: 'iRajia's.i§eykh«a:i*§.K. ," E" '
AND: V' E' V A E
1. G.iV_iuniyEnkataVr;arfiaE'ppa,
"S;/o. late Gopaiappa,
ed-.. _a bout 4 S ' y--e--a rs.
'. A E. Nata ya p-pa,
._ "~'S__,{o§"!a"_te__ GOp"alappa,
' _Aged_abEO'_ut 42 years.
Chavruidarappa,
A .-S/oftate Gopalappa,
, _A'ged about 39 years.
. A3 are resident of
'"'Chinna kote viiiage,
S.G. Kote post,
Bangar Peth Taluk,
Kolar District.
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri T.Srinivasan, Adv. for R1 to R3)
4*
This writ petition is filed under Articles ZED and.Z’g:2.27~._._’..
of the Constitution of India, praying to “q.ua’si_h. the
impugned order dated 29.3.2010 _pa.ssed b’y”‘th.e7Lear’n.eds.v
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) i<.<3.F., in; M.A'.n.o;.12;/2o'o9 ._vide
Annexure —- K and restraining the respjondenfts/defend'a.nt's:.t_'
from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful pos.session 'anal V' ..
enjoyment of suit schedule pIo_p"e.rtiesit-ill the i'f.ina..l'd.i.sposal ~. "
of the proceedings in o.s.No.99/_2oo9 on__the.V-ifilevgéof Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) Bangarpet. ' 9
This petition comingon'«.for;_pre*-l».i_min-a_ry hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court m.adejtw'ne foyl.liiow'»in'gs;
pat:iiona.-,z.,talismantapas me'd'i'o.s.No.99/2009 against
respondents/dVefendan,t's«.,,:i;.7i~the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.
Divn.,)., Bangar_pe~t., .5-for'. the relief of permanent injunction
'V–.and-….Eohseqgyentiaill"reliefs in respect of suit schedule
-propertyf;»–.L£3efen_jijants 2, 3 & 4 have filed separate written
state_me’nts:”:anVd counter claims. The plaintiff has filed
7-‘~.__’*~oi)jecti’o.ns “for the written statements and counter claims.
with the plaint, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 under
_g_Oi’der 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC to grant an order of temporary
‘s/
4′
injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with
his possession and enjoyment of suit schedule
The defendants 2, 3 & 4 filed LA Nos.5, 6 & 7 res’pe«ctVi-ye.ly::j_ _
under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPCWseeking'”lanjorderAycfiu
temporary injunction, restraining the?
interfering with the agricultural o__peraVtio_n’s cars-iecf; injithe
written statement schedule propferties. trial court
having found Drima fac’ie._.xC’ase5,fi bs!lancev..fAof~convenience and
irreparable loss &_ hard:s»hip_ the plaintiff,
allowed & 7. Aggrieved,
the dereddenlt;ei[fiVi:ied order 43 Rule 1(r) read
with Section’ appellate court by judgment
dated the appeal in Dart. The
comnjo’i’iorder’-passed lay the trial court, on I.As 2, 5 to 7
before it, was set–aside and the parties to the
‘suitf’__hav’e7b.ee»nV’directed to maintain status–quo in respect
of the .-._’suit:”‘ schedule and written statement schedule
uH”:”.’4.””–.,:prop_erties. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this writ
{
2. Sri Rajashekhar.K, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner contends that, the court below
unjustly, erroneously and illegally in passing
judgment, whereby it has set~asi_cl,e., the just”an’d.ec;u’ital;-lea ”
order passed by the trial court. ;’~.Lea.fr”rieid c0u’nsel:Vsu’b.nfii.ts
that, the petitioner was em’p_|’o-yged
of his own, out of which theggsuitvschedulhe”properties were
purchased and that, lélelafdiglngseparately from
23.06.1981 and’-the properties were
after his__ thelulfalnwily and in the
circun1gvst_an’c’e.s’_:,” tllaie order passed by the
trial court been interfered with, while
passing thee ilmvpug.n’e,d »ju”d.gn1ent.
‘3. -\
nsri T.’S’r’i’nivasan, learned counsel appearing for
on the other hand contended that, the
tlrialcourtlfailed to notice the relevant aspects of the case
and h’a,s”i~misdirected itself, on account of which, the order
‘1fla.ll>owing LA No.2 and rejecting I.A Nos.5 to 7 was passed.
l.?earned counsel further submits that, in view of the
l
///»r””
,5?
material error and illegality committed by the trial court,
an appeal was filed and that, the appellate court
correct consideration of the record has p_a’sse.d.’._’__:the”
impugned judgment, which in the facts and_.c.i.rc’u.msft:ances’
of the case is justified and no interiierencggj;is¥call,ed.
4. I have perused petition.
5. The parties ‘are brot’hVers,’VVVbe._ing «thechildren of
Late Gopalappa. The ,f’jt::he–‘.__eidest son of
Gopalappa. xivjoined BGML on
25.10.1978″ after the defendants,
because’ ‘T_hVé”suit property purchased
was also of some of the defendants.
The petitioner_:’clai’.ms’*_that, he started leaving separately
” V”‘v.,fro’m€’1Ei’81 and the-re”was a division of the properties. The
contended that, in the presence of
pan,,chay.ath:claVrs and elders of their family, the joint family
prope’rity7~i.e., the suit schedule properties were partitioned
u”V’.,,aVn,dipalupatties dated 23.05.1998 was prepared, in terms
which, separate allotment as per the schedules A to F
/,x”
_, r-
was made. According to them, another item of property
situated at Thumatagere is yet to be partitioned”—agnd
plaintiff without any right, title and interest in V.
statement schedule properties, attempted tohi_nte:rfeire.VVl’
6. The court below, which is-..aylfso’-,a.:4.f’a’ct”‘finding
court, having noticed the cas._e ofltlfile parti’es
documents produced before it, haslheld the trial court
has not correctly appr.ec.iate_d ;t~hle”~–._ci.rculmstances of the
case and the do_cumeynts.:’_andV-.its conci:Vu.Vsi’on in granting
order of fax/otirV.of_:the’pl”a’i’i’i’tiff was unjust and
hence,,.has_o’rderAe3d«for.:rn_ainte–n.-arice of status-quo, which
would inotycauysef;ai1yy’l’nam1 “or injury to either of the
parties.
.”7E’;”l:’ j”Si.nce tuhelfact finding court after reference to
A”-the plrimfayvfaciie«materials placed on record has passed an
equ««i..tab___%~e’ ordier, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere
with theorder, specially keeping in view the relationship
if ‘rlbetwieen the parties. The triai of the suit is required to be
-.v.e§xpedited, so that the matter could be effectively decided.
l»
K’
In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
The pleadings being complete, the trial
directed to try and dispose of the suit
practicable and at any event, within a peri_o~d-»o:fj8V
from the date a copy of this judgmeratl
record.
The trial codrt_,.is direct,’ed_”‘t.o decide, the suit,
uninfluenced by any and findings
recorded by tvhef’c.ourt_’A’b’eio$,§,~ judgment
herein.
parties are kept open for
consideration.’ V f
‘ReturnVth’e. forthwith to the trial court.
Qartiesiare directed to appear before the trial court
receive further orders.
55].’.
Tudge