IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAREVIATAKA AT BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 2157' DRY' OF FEBRUARY 2009.
BEFORE
THE HONTSLE MRJUSTICE .
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL N'O,9fV7»16 0:5' 2ei);=3,("(:?c) 4
BETWEEN:
SRI.RUI)RAPPA,
s/0 HIRIYANNA.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/0 THINDLU VILLAGE.
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
YUELA1-KLANKA HOBLI, ~ _
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. '- _ 5 ' APPELLANT
{BY MR. G.A. SRIKATTTT: ..e'ow1:¥A§ A15.vo'<:ATE-.1 V'
AND:
sMT.sARoJAMMA,.V T; ..
w/o P.NARAYANASW:1M[Y}' A V ' '
AGED ABOUT. 39 4Y£;A;Rs;j
THINDLU VILIAGE, _ .. --
VIDYARANYAPURA }'.OST.. '
YELAHANKA I-IOB£I,_ ' -
BANGALORE N.oRTH*:aALUK.v RESPONDENT
my SR1,
$1′-a*Ié’EiWA”n::URTHY, A.3V0cATE}
2% i:
THIS i\(fi3CE1QL.ANEOUS FIRST APEPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 R*1,(r} apt: AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15-1042005
–. .’_j~£-Ass,ED ori_11;A.Ns.1 FRED 3*; THE RESPONDENT HEREIN
4 UNDTER .<(__)RDER 39 RULE 11 A333 2 R/W' sE<:.151 CPC IN
*.__'"o_,s~.«N0,6oe1/2004 GN Tm: Fzm 6'}? THE XVII ADDLCITY CIVIL
'& .s1::ssINs JUDGE? BANGALGRI3, GRANTING TEMPORARY
A’ ‘ _f ~»I_N’.IUNC4JTION.
:5,/”
THIS M.F.A., CGMIING OR FOR FINAL HEARING THIS BAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FGLLOWENG:
QUDGMENT
This Miscellaneoue First Appeal”
under Order 43 R 1 {r} CFC
dated 15~–10~2o05 passaa an 1..%’a.Nie’;jr.A~:zeV f§’1.a’d_:4′,bY;
respondent herein under <*319dia1j 397R: 1
Sec.151 opt: in o.s.NQ.8oe_:"/"2Voe.a ea'-«t1;'a_§f3i1e of
the XVII .add1.c§t3,'<…{:i.;v:1_L;;;,,V""sejaa'si.oas Judge.
Bangalore. granting tevrrzit.-%:::fv:ar'j,rA
2. I have .:t3’r.e..jl”e.a”r_n”ebd..–Counsel for the
appellantwa’s..e:.'<»;*efi§:,;=as'–. t–§ie'"iea'rned Counse} for
responderrt. " '
3. _-..Tjhe V’!5b;x*fiee Twiii be referred with
1r.efe–rer’r>::«e Etc the stézV’¥€’fiAs in the Court below.
~4′;’.-._’rfiaTy~_p’1T;a’%ntifr has filed an application
finder em-a.=;.éeaa Ruiaa 1 arm 2 r/w Sec.151 CPC.
: 9I’A’41’1″{.=,,’V:ctrnéterition of the fiaintiff in the Court below
ras”.u n’der: ,2/’
She is the absolute owner and in possession
of the land measuring 51/-1;, guntas of 1and”–.._»in
Sy.No.80/4, situated at Thindlu .y’sii1”aLg’g”’,’V..
-.
Yeiahanka Hobli, Bangaiore North ‘1’alu’.’1:{:’Lh’
land was purchaseé wide reg.is”ier«ed’_’ tied-,d\t’~.,
dtd.16–1~2002. M: the revezhuét”£e¢’cfa.gv
mutated in the name
M.R.28/OL02. She is in p_aé{c.e:tut1 possessiion of
the suit schedule §rop?é–r=tj§¥.”–
The p1air;.vt’itflf:V:’~ that the
defendants Rhhiav-ing a support of
anti socVi*aiI”‘o’ are trYing to
interfere»’v..Wit”h’ possession of the
plaintiff. have filed this
vaa–p.1;v1ic;tt§.i.oE1}?V’ §..§”..€_¥1′{if of exparte temporary
o
1fij_u*n_o’tion.V_”resirainixsg the defendants or their
age1’1.t–s.’*fro.irku7.”§:IéA’:i*i’9iésizing the sheé put up in the
plaint s.a”111ft””v.seh.eé1;ie §i'{‘s§€§’fj7.
éhffhe defenéanés E. and 3 have filed the
no-hjtection statement as under:’
61/
The defendants ever that the portions of the
property described in eieeizs A,B,C,D,E,F, G are
the portions of the preperties sold jointly
joint family members te several
property described in mocks 1 and’V”~5:.:~..ar*e giIn_r
exclusive posseesien we enje_yrn,e.nftIof,”t-heV”V-..,1$¥;.A
defendant. The eeepert3rV.a’:i4_escribe”d
and 8 is in exeiusive gees?-_;essui’od1h2′ andbendjohyrnvent of
the defendant Ne.:§. v’__i€’V~§:e.’:p=r’opertt’y.. described in
block No.2 and 2? eye in e§;c.1’Vnsiv–‘e.Vpossession and
enjoyment of gfieffelncieigetg property in
blocks 4 82: 5.6 _.i;rVe”V””i.r;4″‘e.’::€i’i’ia.Siv~.e*’possession and
enjoyment yournger brother of
defendants. Portion which is
describegdvippn wrz2ee.surir2g 0.30 guntas is
é.”s:p§’g,$.fieg§’§§§’§¥;h enfi enjoyment of the
det;e.rivd_a’ntts:V”‘a2nrifether jeint family members. The
x*’defenda4nts.~~s_t%:rte that in erder to maintain the
” «..1’1:u’r_opertiesv.V__hi’ in tézeér names as per the
:*~.:n1z’n&i–ers_ta’;1dings in the §e;g”§§§E}r. the father executed
. its-ebpbarate power ef eeteerzegr in the names of all the
brothers in resgeee: ta the blocks — 5,6,7 and
<2/,
8. The learned i;’€§’é.33’%§$€l for the appellant
submits that the £.ea’£:*§’i2€;=.€i Eéistrict Judge havepvnot
passed a speaking? assay and therefore, the”.o’1’d*ear..
passed by the §..s~.r.=:.::*m:-:.::é fiistriet Judg–e::”u
sustainable in é:.§*~:s.:. §:ven.:””‘thpotfghwl'”s’e1.?eraix7..
contentions were sstsezi and ev.?«en7__tl1ou’gh..se.ve_fa_l°=
documents were §3z’a::du;£;:e§.:”§,’ :11-.ese dQcu_Irieri’ts””‘Were
not looked into.
9. The learned iinzg-:é_a;éVi’V»i;o:~–«._lthfefirespondent
§’:’2e€3 {;z::’€§?.<.'53z"';«. '
supports the irnpzx
10. I hassfeii’— ‘-ggelrused the impugned
order. The_ 1e’a’rv;..ss4.p:”,:sg;;;”m:5§a»:’ Judge has observed
that the pialintifs ‘E’3sa5;”””–::f§:5nished 11 documents.
One of fiiivfip doe§;:::é%駧:€§’ €§§.§~}%;’fiiGS€S that plaintiff has
:’i$.11.i’VC1.1p5?’3<l'-l€f"'R't§lll'*«._gfiéélllllésfiissri? by defendant No.1.
The-.VfJ.hodtoVgrspV"§:Vs:~~ a:"iiése§<:ssa: the existence of the
lsvshed.'»..44_TherelfésAfe. iiiés E""z"éa§ Ceurt has held that
" «..fjVt'h_e'-».pIaintiVfAf has gsi. :;%'«'§.'1§§E£82~§3Ci€ case. The Trial
7–,lC-o"tujt._h%.s aise srder to preserve the
'v.'Vts—tateeiof affairs as is esgiszsfi.
Q/'
10
11. The piaintiff seeking relief for the grant
of temporary injunction. has to satisfy the Court
about the existence of a prirna facie case
favour. Once the civii Court
conclusion that the plaintiff ha~s.__’a
case in his favour, it is called “‘upé:$_”I1’~’Vto*,s’ee’ aisf”:Aoi’?1.’_A
whose favour the ‘nalance’of~~._conivenieniceflfevxeisits
and whether the interfersnV_c_ie:A’»v:ef,_Vthé’ was
justified at that stagve…i:i’:;*;::–_pr{,o:te’c’Lt~twhis rights or
not. Mere existszitn ‘case could
not be suffic.i’e§n’t injunction.
It was nec%’¢_s§;;_;«g{;»;:;;at the existence
of a prirriga of convenience is
also in faifojir claiming it. It has
also be;’s._liown tpersozi claiming injunction
«.v’Vi”i1.’1’E’5i’:il1’3R1’*.3i_%§€ Vviiiiiiinjnty which cannot be
con1pe_cn.si’a.te.d”iiaaetnis sf money would be caused
an injun.c~t_i§§n is rafuseé.
the instant case, the Triai Court has
né.–tiA”–ei:aAInined these aspects and simply passed
uiiueiviiiorder to presetve the state of affairs as it
1/
exists. It is the contentien of the learned
Counsel for the appeilant that the order
impugned is not a speaking erder. Therefore, Vt”h_ge
Trial Court is fiiireeted is examine the
mentioned abeve and pass the reasoned” M
Since the order passed by the ::;<i'a1-.co:;r;'ei's'I.'n6t.'.1a
speaking order, in my 'é»"§éV¥ ti.1is'._ orde'r_'–is..
sustainable in iaar and the is "liablevto'*..l5'e-~s'et
aside.
13. The learned Co–1i7n_se_l fovx.'””t.l1ie:”‘r.espondent ~
plaintiff submitsstizatv,ti:.efexpartev. ‘interim order
was But, on perusal
of the ortieij: order has been
granted in Therefore, the
oenvtenv_t’i:.:o’n__f’ ei” ____ __.£ee:’-reed Counsel for the
re’sVpo;n’den.t*.t’h_a”?:__ éajunetzies may be granted till
the .c’eiis’posVal.”_”–eiii.’fie has he merit and cannot be
aC–cepte”c¥. af’-‘Z this stage.
The ehservatien made herein shall not
4″v~.eginf.*11i’enee the Teiai {Joure while disposing of the
2/