High Court Karnataka High Court

N Adiram S/O Narayanaswamappa vs S N Gopalakrishna S/O … on 13 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
N Adiram S/O Narayanaswamappa vs S N Gopalakrishna S/O … on 13 December, 2010
Author: H.G.Ramesh
M.F.A.N0.9122g2009

& Misc.CVI.23§51/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALCil§E

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY or DECEMBER    " 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE;     " 

M.F.A.No.91T22/2'oo§;_n
AND M1sc.cvL.2'3'551/2oo9~3 '  

BETWEEN :

NADIRAM '- V 5
5/0 NARAYANASWAMAPPA-'* -- 
AGED ABOUT 52..w2.ARs '

R/A SRIRAMA NILAYA"' _. _
sAHAKARANAGAR_A      
BENGALURU I\IQR'TE:{_TALTJ}{V  ._    APPELLANT

{BY SR1   r€§§:jQjK;«v.ADV0cATE}

AND:

1  S N GU'PALAKRISHNA
_~ E3,/Q__NARAYANASWAMAPPA
- A "AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
»  ~ R/A BYATFARAYANAPURA VELLAGE
'  BENC-..ALURU_}NORTH TALUK

2 '  SMT ,.IALAJAKsHAMMA
'W/0' RAJAGQPALA REDDY
AGED. 69 YEARS
A' _ R/AVBYATARAYANAPURA VILLAGE
'BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

-  3"";  SAMT SUMITHRAMIVIA

W/O ASHWATH
AGED 57 YEARS
R/A D.NO.837, 17"?" MAIN





M.F.A.NO.9122/2009
81 Misc. Cv1.2355 1 /2009

51"" BLOCK, BHASAYAM CIRCLE
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU

SMT. BHLAGYAMMA
W/O c V NARAYANASWAMY

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS   ~
R/A BYATARAYANAPURA VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 

SMT KANTHAMMA
W/O PRABHAKAR
AGED 47 YEARS

SR1 KODANDARAM '  
S/O PRABHAKAR ' '
AGED 31 YEARS H
RESPONDEN'T~NOs.5  6gARE  A '  
R/AQ.344,Vr:;G;1B'LOcK~ _   V
16'"? CR€3SS»,"'MALLESHWARAM--  
EENGALuRU..55oor;3«--.  «-

sR1fB V   ,
s/G-__N vEN,KATARA_MAR_ --
AGED ABOUT 47 '~rEARs=-  
Rm 924. N G BLOCK, A . E
16TH cRO_ss,. MALLE;SI~I\Z_VARAM
EENGALURD 660003

E w. _AC.ED,61YEARS
 R,/A924,  G BLOCK
 Em .CI?.QSS',- MALLESHWARAM

. = A B--ENGALURU -- 560 003

SR: .sR1i§*1V1AsAMURTI--1Y
AGED ABOUT 7:2 YEARS

V' A RESIDING AT OLD N025

NEW NO.85

 =FOURTH TEMPLE STREET
'E Q 6T" CROSS. MALLESHWARAM
f BENGALURU -- 560 003



10

11

M.F.A.No.9122g2009

8: MisC.CV1.23551/2009

SR1 N CHANNAKESHAVAMURTHY
AGED 87 YEARS

R/AT BYATARAYANAPURA VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

N SIDDARAMAPPA   -
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS I

21} SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA  '
AGED 62 YEARS " D  
W/O LATE SR1 siDDARA1vLA:>EA

b} SRI s JAYACHANDRA
AGED 39 YEARS,   __   
s/0 LATE SR1 SIDDARAJVLAEEA _   "

C] sm s NAPJRYANA;SWA1'-E23' * 
AGED 3.7"3:EA'.Rs,==__ __ A  A ' 
S/O LATE s';R1_._v_sI~DDAr?ANLAEEx ,

d} sMTvS..B'EJ§;DHé._'   " _ _ 
.AGED_33 YEARS   '
i_D/O LATE sRzs1D4DA§;A,MAPP

RESFON'DENT_ N'o.s'.A . 1 '1"(a_} "is: "1 1 {cl}
ARE R'/ATESRJ RAMA NILAYA
ASHWATHAPPAVFARM 
S;HAN.KARA"NAGAR

._fE'ENGAL.URUm56G--e9"

g SINCE DEAD BY His LRS

E1') S'MT"\/ENKATALAKSHMAMMA

'AGED 50 YEARS,

 A  W/O LATE N JANARDHANA

"  SR1 ASWATHNARAYANAKUMAR

AGED 42 YEARS
S/O LATE N JANARDHAN



M.F.A.No.9122g 2009
81 Misc . CV}. 2355 I /2009

C} SR1 UPENDRA KUMAR
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O LATE N JANARDHAN

d} SR1 NAVANEETIH
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O LATE N JANARDI-IAN   -

RESPONDENT Nos. 12(3) to {d}

R/AT JODIDAR CIIATRA

BYATARAYANAPURA _V

BENGALURU NORTH
I3ENGALURU–560092. ‘RESPONDENTS

{BY SR1 SHANMUKHAPPA,’._AJ?VO–CA’I.’E ‘ ‘I « . T
M/s KESVY (3! CO., ADV’OCA’IE_s:*»E0R’C;ERA*IION OF’ ORDER DATED 03.12.2009
PASSED IR ‘OILS. 350.6319 / 1994 BY THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND

SI:s;é,I_ONVs~”‘_;IUDIO’E [CCH.N0.2], BANGALORE, TILL THE

DIsI3Q’sAI.~OEfIRE ABOVE APPEAL.

MIFAI & MISC. CVL. APPLICATION COMING ON FOR

_ .AE}MI_SSIC)’N THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
A T”‘Ir_OI.LOINING:

M.F.A.No.9l22[2009
& Misc.Cvl.23551/2009
.3 U D G M E N T

This appeal by defendant No.6 is directed agains_t

an interlocutory Order dated 03.12.2009. passed

trial Court namely the Court of the I Addl. 0′

Judge, Bangalore (CCH.No.2], ‘”13; ‘V

O.S.No.6319/1994.

2. I have heard the learneld’-,C’o.unseVl for
and perused the impugned orde1″”w-h_i’ch”h.as beeiiltinlforce

from the last one year.

3. the trial Court has allowed

the application file_dt:–:byt No.5 under Order 39

Rules -and the restraining the defendants

; from alienating.’ encumbering or creating any charge over

properties pending disposal of the suit.

The A suit for partition of the suit schedule

it”‘::T’.i”-propeprtieswZclairning that they are the joint family

properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. On the

of the case, the discretion exercised by the trial

I/..

/

M.F.A.No.9122 g 2009
& Misc.CVl.23551/2009

Court in granting the order of injunction referred to

above cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious.VtQ_’i~.._

warrant interference in appeal. No ground to –‘-‘

appeal. The appeal is accordingly diflsrnisse-d2″”‘

Counsel on both sides submit thatv’».ihe’fs1titdis’ now

down for evidence. Accordingl3rV.”l..deeni-

direct the trial Court to dispose

and in any event the date of

receipt/productionrofg a filn View of

dismissal of ~.tl_ie€iiriterloentorjffapplication in
also stands
dismissed. V’ V l

Appea: .di51n.issed;

V ‘/ ata