N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23"] DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. LIUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALAV.'§$_{TVSk'!§u?'A.V"2V
WRIT PETITION NOS.26003--26004/2010
BETWEEN:
SRI B.R.Manjappa,
S/o. fate Rangappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at No.60,
Sonna Thammanahaiiig
Vinayaka Layout, A ._ p
12"' Cross, virgonagar post,' ' .
Bangaiore -- 560.049. ' V
, PETITIONER
(By B.M:,SD§--':y'a[TT9T'a.sacF._ 8: Associates, Advs.)
AND: A A A A A
1. S ,.Chand*r.a_VVM'ohan,
-S/'o P. \.'»V._ Ra m a re--d--d'y,
=._Agec§ .ab_o"ut 32 years,
* ,No,,.4-,.,_3'§""C,ross,
._ ''-\(,8;'La'yout,,'»~.*<.R.Puram,
' ,_Banga.|or"s3__ 4- 560 036.
Srn~~RK'..Padmanabhan,
A. ,S/o."EVl.R.Chandrashekar Murthy.
_ R2. deieted
RESPONDENTS
Sri T.Narayanaswamy, Adv, for R1)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 29.3.2010, passed in O.S.No.-442/2009 by the__ find
Addl, Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District,., at
Bangalore vide Annexure –H and order dated 2G’.t~?,’2..O’.tO
passed in M.A.No.31/10 by the Adhoc District and…$_es_ssions
Judge, FTC–I Bangalore Rural District, Bangaloire ~
An nexure –J.
These petitions coming on forliilpreiritnlirnaty-C,he–ari_ng”VVin”‘«
‘B’ group this day, the Court made”~the;’fol!sowsi»ng’: .
oases;
Respondent/plaintiff has”– instit-z,,i_ted ACCOV.-5.4912/2009
against petitioner/defendarit of Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.), Bangaio’r’e_ Rural’iffiiistrjicti,-‘.|3angaiore, for relief of
declaration’ ‘_Aof~C.5t,it|_elviandjyfonr pehrrnanent injunction. Along
with the”su”it, to restrain the defendants
from ,.puttingu”upAconstruction or changing the nature of the
. V.”‘suVit’s-property_ti|I thellldisposal of the suit. The Trial Court
s–alVlo_eviied:,:’I»–.._i§.;if restrained the defendants from putting
up any t:o~nst.ruction in the suit property tiil the disposal of
sui’tv.i,__i*I.A.2 filed by the 2″” defendant under 0.39 R.4
Véffwas Qonsequently dismissed. Aggrieved, the
‘E”‘–‘.fi_gp_étitioner filed M.A.31/2010 in the Court below. The
B
{ I
appeal having been found to be devoid of merit, has been
dismissed. Challenging the said order and judgment, the
2″” defendant has filed these writ petitions.
2.. indisputably, the suit property belonged.’_jto_’__”o’n_e
Subbaiah Setty. He had sold the suit propertyV:’4_:i~–n.Vfavour oft 0
one K.S.Thippeswamy. Said Thi;opesvra:nj”¥ p’a’s..:
property to the petitioner on_:.?.5.8.1A9E38. The’.-‘original°’sa’l’eV”g
deed of the suit property isiihot’ in th’e..custocly of the
petitioner. The pIainvt;iffV~._cla_i’rns_igithatlfthe petitioner had
executed a general powerofy alttofne’y.j¢d’a.t;3;j.’.-20.11.1999 in
respecf:”‘of’ irrfavour of one Mr.Gandhi,
who has sold -th’e’:_i’~pro.pe.rt\,.- under a sale deed dated
19.4.2000 in f.av.o_u.r loft defendant 1 Sri R.C.Padmanabhan
he Ahias’–purchased the property on 3.5.2006.
“pla:’i-n_t”iff”li:;:’having the custody of the title deed of suit
pro,p’e«rty_éo’fv’dthe petitioner.
3. Noticing the material facts, the Courts below have
the impugned order/judgment, respectively. The
Courts below in exercise of their jurisdicfion, prima facie
__,,,.»-r”
-1
finding merit in the case of the plaintiff, have passed the
impugned orders. The suit schedule property has a small
shed and the rest of the area is vacant. Fror’n:”‘»t.he
photographs produced, it could be seen that,
been put up.
4. The petitioner contends that, had ‘n.ot~–.e’>”f_V’i’vir.Gan’d7hi
stated that, for availing of u'”‘ioa’r1,_V deed was
delivered to Mr.Gandhl;._ylit=o r.i_’as,.com_m_iAt’ted breach of trust
and has acted dishonesgtlyl pleaded by
the is a matter for trial.
Howevehpthei pet’i’tifo.n’erfixaa filed o.s.2o2/2005 against
R.C.P_adman”ah,ha~n.Twho had purchased the property from
_In the””‘said suit, though an application was
Gandhi and the plaintiff, the petitioner
was__’4’unsu.cce,ssfu|. However, the suit has been decreed
‘nagainst,_F%.C.Padmanabhan on 1.12.2008. Much prior to
,,,f.”_tah.e,'”asaaid decree, the plaintiff has purchased the suit
property i.e., on 3.5.2006 from R.C.Pail£’anabhan.
,– .
5. Keeping in view the said factors_,..___ no
interference with the impugned order/judgment
for. However, neither of the parties shall
the suit schedule property i.e., either by way”‘of’ldeernc.l’i_tion… ‘Au
or putting up any kind of construction’tiilere’i~n_:’ti.ll_
and disposal of the suit.
Since the pieadin”gs_’of the ip.aj’rtVi’els._Aare«cVo’rr’:’;3Viete, the
Trial Court is directed ‘V of the suit
expeditiously, Trial Court to
undertake to frame the issues
on the«next’V.V.da.teé:’:é}3f”–hea,ri’ngfi’$122010. The parties
are at li’!)Aert’y toiiepq.-.iié;a:;;,…es, in the Triai Court within a
period of from: today. The list of documents shall
*v,._i3e the'”pa.rt..ies before 18.12.2010. The plaintiff
‘shé’il~i.ad.duicei. complete his side of evidence within 3
m»i=.;ils; vfrt§’in..athe date the suit is posted for trial. The
‘.V_defehd.aV’nt shall adduce and complete his side of evidence
“..jijwiith’i«hA’ Bflirnonths from the date of the closure of plaintiff’S
‘ side def ‘evidence. The Trial Court is directed to hear the
it,
arguments and dispose of the suit as eariy as practégabie
and at any event, within a period of 3 months
date the trial of the suit is compiete.
Writ petitions stand disposedhfwaccoraingitkf in
Ksj/–
