IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7?" DAY OF AUGUST 2009
BEFORE A
THE HON'Bi.,E MR. JUSTICE c.R. KUMARASIA{AIv:*.?.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NC);'IGD645j{2QO:6V1{GIG}
BETWEEN:
SRI.N.VENKATESH BABU
AGEO ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O SRI.K.NAGARAJA SETTY -
RESIOING AT NO.186/22,'8T"'f'- CROSS
II MAIN, JAYANAGAR II BLOCK"
BANGAi.ORE"'-"'3AEIQ;D£':i:.% ' APPELLANT
(BY SR1: K.R.A1E3.HOKV: ;AALwA)
AND: l&
SR1 ;O .éRA--!.'5l A?I'AH"
SIN§I»E_D»ECEASED"'*B_Y HIS LRS
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
VV"'3MT.l;A%uI§A «
MAIN ROAD, KADIRENAHALLI'CIR.CLE~».VA
wARD --- 55, PA.DMANAE3HANAG_~AR,"»_
r3ANGALORE,--~5_6;o oiro, -
AGED iA"B"O'LfxT7:'39T'f:'EA'R.S"-
w/ O A. S . _ SAT:+:y.AN A RAYA NA'
NO.913,. IST F!_OO_R,'E'I..fAf.'MAIN ROAD
THYAGRAJANAGAR I1» BLOCK
BANGALORE 7+ 560 0A28;A
." * .5R'RAN»A.NTHARAjU'"T '
»AG~E£) ADOm*4o YEARS
SS/O S¥Z.E*E'RAVM,A~IAH SETTY
No.3/1, GIRAMADEVATHA CROSS
ROAD, v._C'HIKKAMAVALLI
BANGALORE - 560 004. RESPONDENTS
A 4A._(33’AA.SRE«_.B.R.NARAYAN RAO, ADV FOR c/R1,
SNANEUNDASWAMY, ADV FOR R1-3,
R4-6 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
U
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 3..(r) OF__ CPC
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2006 PASSED”-ON
I.A.NO.13 IN OS NO.2}.94/2002 ON THE FILE OF THEKXI’-V
ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH~–..’NQ_;28)..A
ALLOWING IA.NO.13 FILED UNDER ORDER 39.jRUvL_E<Z'(A'):
FOR ATTACHMENT OF SCHEDULE IMMOVAE5LF._:'PROIF?E_RTY"
ETC.
THIS MFA IS COMING ON FOR HEARI.f$lG:”TH~ITS A
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWINGI;
JUDGMEET
This Miscellaneous Fir:st’_AppAéaiV’ Lmtier ‘0rder–43
Rufe~–1(r) of Civif PrOCedure_ Order dated
14.9.2005 passed2__”Oh}..vi;A.;*NO._i.3 int:TO.s_-..§Jo.2194/2002 on
the file of Ctiwty-T(iiTiE’E”‘J’Ii|dge, Bangalore (CCH
No.28) aIIO\Aiin”g.0_I.A:.V:ARJOI.¢i34:_:f§-fiegit Onder Order-39 Fule~2(A)
for attachment sehedufe ifiirnovabie property.
Parties~.sAiE!|___be referred with reference to the status
in the ‘CO’uFt beA~i’Q.vVEK:. A
A (3)D”The7:’Dla”i;ntiff has filed an application under Order~
CPC praying to Order for attachment Of the
U
schedule immovable property of the fourth defendant Sri N.
Venkatesha Babu and also to order for detention of fourth
defendant in civil prison.
(4) In support of this appiicai:ioéi__,
representative of the plaintiff has.-.___swoVrn,_ to as
under: V ‘ V
(4.1) The suit propeftgif’beionggs”tO’,’;fAiiis.,,father and the
first defendant purchased <:}"'gu*ntavs' sy.No.17/1 of
Kadirenahaiii .,,..'VF',f;;1';',;Vi_,'Wéangaio.-e 'south
taiuk under7.__a __re§ifs'i:e~redpSa_ie…___d«eed dated 15.3.1979. He
further states that th'e_first–':d'efe.ndant piayed a fraud on his
father anc_icreated"'a._VGenei'al Power of Attorney to purchase
aciditéiojnai4.j9i«unta~s__ of land adjacent to above 9 guntas of
iandq know of this, the same was canceiied
recjisterehdf deed of canceliation by his father on
"The defendant No.1 filed a suit for injunction in
£\io.124/89 on the fiie of the City Civii Court, Bangaiore
W
and it was hotly contested. Feeling aggrieved by___the
Judgment in o.s. No.124/89, RFA No.1133/2002 wasgfliiigea
and it is still pending.
(4.2) He further states that-his.’faithe.rj’i.*d_iedv’._’.ion-.A it
10.2.2004 and he was prosecuting
defendant claimed to have purchased the._p’roj:~eVVrtvir”‘rights it
over the said 4 acres of iaiidagtheipriesgnlt-suit vvas”filed and
obtained an injunction order haerits-‘.j’4_’restraining the
defendants 1 to 4 iirorn-haiiezngating suit…schedule property
which reiate»s”t”o ii”n”‘S\;/.No.17/1. The said 4
guntas of land” of land sold to the
first deferidfint further states that he filed
andVa’ppiic’a.t’io..n~:fQr_apApoiVntri9ient of receiver and the matter is
still’~pendErigf’:~«.;b’efore~ this Court in MFA .No.7038/2005.
lVjrIns,_oEteA’o_f order of injunction granted against fourth
has disobeyed the injunction order and
“a*’registered sale deed on 25.3.2006 relating to a
2/
portion of the suit land in favour of L. Jagaram, Mr. Batqulal.
Therefore it is stated that the fourth defendantiihfhas
committed the Contempt of Court. The sale deed”
by the fourth defendant is fraudul:eint”~i«nA_ if
defendants have also filed an applieation_A.’under”Ordet?43.§’~,
Rule~–4 for vacating the injuncti’o«nVV””torder’*«g_ranteci_vh§Cthe V
Court below on 19.11.2»iiO~5. the
application of the defendapntsp rejected
their applicationon”‘2éi2.,:20Cl;6’l’A: the schedule
property be attached and the
fourth deferiidanttie-“p«u_r1ish’eVd’l-.a__r:dordered to be detained in
civil prison.
I-‘T'”V–{5)”t–j;fhe’tt.fourthdefendant has filed the statement of
obje’cti:o.ns”‘toffthe’application filed under C)rder-39 Rule–2A
sac as4.iun._der,§.i’.t’
allllegijations made in paragraph~2 of the affidavit
the application filed under Order-39 Rule~–2A
2/
are substantially correct. According to which, the property
was sold by Ramaiah to the first defendant under registered
sale deed dated 15.3.1979. The very same
to right is sold by the first defendant to_..se’VeVraA.l::’t_hird7
parties. Among them, the fourth def_end.anf’t iias._’ptircii.a”sVed’.’
the land measuring total area of@456._s’qLiare”‘v’%’f’ee4t_:under
registered sale deed dated that this
defendant was forced to furtherance of
commitment made the time
was Eapsed and to take action
against thisv.vdefen’davn.t;_for’niyonjperformance of contract and
ultimately thilsdefendant’vy:i’t.h””g.ood faith sold the property
toavoid iitigation. was committed long prior to fiting
of”theLapipliciaftiorfby the plaintiffs under Order-39 Rutes 1
‘;»,_and defendant states that he is a law
__:”‘.§bi’cli_ng clitizlenvand he has no intention to impeach the
4_’_’protilisiAon’s.._yof law and he has not disobeyed the order or
‘7fvi_c”)Vlated the status quo order passed by this Court. The
U
schedule property does not belong to the defendant and the
same cannot be attached. Hence fourth defendant~.V_p-rays
to dismiss the application filed under
cpc.
(6) The sum and substance of the
Court are as under:
The triai Court has observed..:tinat’Vwthe’defendant No.4
in paragraph-9 of the objec’ti’ons’~ stated that
he was forced to vfugrtherance of the
commitment madAe’i’v–b.y~.__VnEm’4..t_o..tt_hepurchasers and time was
iapsed and intended to take action
against defend”a~ntvvfor:non–performance of the contract
and defendant with good faith sold the
7*,_p’ropert§.”to fiitiigation and for better prospects. The
__r’..sa4IeV.wasucommivtted iong prior to fiiing of the appiécation by
‘._”‘thAe”‘~fj’:aintifffs”under Order~39 Ruies-1 and 2 of CPC. So this
tfstajternent itseif goes to show that the defendant No.4 has
E/’
sold portion of the property to third party eventhough there
is an injunction order against him not to alienate osj”cr_eate
any change over the suit schedule property. ‘
defendant No.4 has disobeyed the ordie”r’s«–of&thisgfijotiyrtlii
(7) Learned counsel for the ieppeiiantlieuemiteesi-
unden
Identity of the propeffty T’Vh’e°property
which is sold is not a subject_v’lrr3Vat.terViV schedule.
No enquiry has be_en’}condt1cted’;iV ‘”T.heV”triefl Court has come
to a “_o”l’ead§ings, but not on the
evidence. vlT&h’e.’re’ on the part of
the defend_ant:L”~~TVhe.V:sale«._d’e’ed executed was prior to filing
0fi’th5 “faA:’i3i7JiAi:ic3t.lOfi’H’tinder ottiet-39 Rule~2A in o.s.
No.f:;i194l’/’2O:Ci’2.:,.V*’E§ve.fendants’ mother’s property has been
A’V.:A”a’ttached~-..arid»wlhicih is highly illegal.
.yy.:(.8.)__4LeVa’rned counsel for the appellant relied on the
“reported in Smt. Lakshmamma .vs. K.S.
9/
10
Sheshanna reported in ILR 2004 Kar. 407. Paragraph-16
of the said ruling reads as under:
“Needless to say that when the defendant A
the knowledge of the exparte order or–‘that:’_sh’e ii
has to deliberately committed;disobfeciience-4’o~f:~-at,__r~i.–E
the injunction order, the: _4appl’i–cati«on avl–‘l’.op’ir1’g
breach of an injunction ord’et.i:¥V:”‘i1..as ton. it
on the basis of evidence ledl-*by”y_th’e~-»parties;-. The
Court imposing a ptj’nV:i”shn*1tent:. –__Order 39
Rule 2(A) of the cheats tobea’ri_’inV’~’1.y.ni’ind that
the proceedil§g”‘;;t.i’deE..the'”sai’ti is in the
nature ofia j”p’filfo’c’e.e:diVn–ig-as the person
against” is initiated is
liable to be .deta:i.n:ed’:”i’n.:_:prison if it is found that
he had”corrln’1i’tte’d.’A’ of injunction order.
Since~a_puunisvhment’isivirnposed and a person is
to jail, xth”e””Vprinciple on which these
decided are entirely different.
tvhe”.”.p:ri’ll.c’i.ple of criminal law will apply and
theflolaiintitli will have to establish beyond any
bf doubt that the defendant had willfully
“‘*V’.Ac’o.r_n:’initted dis—obedience or breach of the
V’ injunction order. The burden of proving the
9./’
11
case in such cases lies entirely on the plaintiff. I
am of the view that the plaintiff has not–.__
established that the defendant has willfuii~~,«.:’j««.._:’~i«_
violated the order of injunction.”
(9) Learned counsel for the
eventhough he was fully awaregof thelifinjui’iivc’ti..ovn_Horder,
inspite of it he sold the clearly
demonstrates that he has”–cllealrlyff.disobielyed the order of
injunction. The ord_e’r.__pass’ed’ is legal and
valid.
(10) l;ea”rne’d:cotin’$.eit’i.._Ziappearing for the appellant
mainly relied on’~..th’e Vdecii’s_iion”‘iiVcited above wherein it is held
t:liat~-.the»-‘:..:ei~pp.lica_t.ion V”a’l’i’egiVng breach of an injunction order
has’ the basis of evidence led by the
lid?’-‘parties.i of injunction order and adjudicating that
.._.l’.jh’Ve–.iVS”»guTilty”ofiivioiating the injunction order and imposing of
also detaining him in civil prison will have
9/
12
consequences of criminal nature. Therefore a
reasonabie opportunity has to be provided -‘to;i_”t.h’e4
defendant who is aileged to have ”
committed breach of the injunction”orci.er_,.”Hi’fin ‘the’:
instant case, the statement that the”.defebnd.ant~
has disobeyed the order of
framed. No evidencebt:-as this
aspect. No proper to the
defendant to “Vcai$’eH’V.'””~*~”V’iATherefore the
order not sustainable in
law and the sameV-is–«V.l_i:’abI’e’_Tto__ be set aside.
(11.)_§4iACcord’in.g;iivy’,’A&:the impugned order is set
asA’i’cl_Ve.;X_ThA_e«niatter is remitted back to the Court
itwormedasmesof the application LA. No.13 in o.s.
_iH:\:y9.’2_194/2.691″after making a detailed enquiry and
in accordance with iaw. With this
U.
13
observation, this Miscellaneous First Appeal
disposed of.
Gss/–
is