M.F'.A.NO.8616/2010 81 MISCCVL. F7580/2010
C/W 1VI.F.A.NO.8320/2010
_ 1 V77
IN THE HIGH COURT 012 KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS arm: mm DAY 01-' DECEMBER 2o1D",:. "'»..V
BEFORE J
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ' L'
Miscellaneous First Aaoeall"JNo}§36..1'6_/20-if)«_._I" L.
And _ .. ._ _ _ ..
Miggellangggg Civil 1753 -2010 A ' " "
Misceiianeous First ADt5'ea"i» No.8'32O'/D20 10%
BETWEEN:
V RAMESI-I KUMAR
S/O.B VENKATESH V
R/AT NO.312, 181' LOQR.
6TH CROSS, GOKULAfI.D,S'i'AGE :: ~~~
MATHIKERE ~ «
BANGALOREJV560_b5é::.;,_ _ " APPELLANT
D :-3 -- '- _ (COMMON)
{BY smvv D SHIV}; K_U'MAR,%V_A1)V.) .
AND:
1 V,
- W/_O_.SRI B VENKATESH
«, R/AT N_O;3l2. GROUND FLOOR
" --» .6T",C'r?_OSS', -GOKULA1 STAGE
EV/L*¥I'1'!.IKE3RE3.v~~
"-.DBANGA1.ORE 560 054
2 SMT. KALAVATH1
W/OLK NAGENDRA
.. R/AT AT No.35, 181' CROSS
" ~._1sT MAIN, PRAKASH NAGAR
JBANGALORE 560 021
.A 35 SMT. KAVITHA
W/O.SRI RAMESH BABU
C /0.S1\/ET KALAVATHI
M.F.A.NO.8616/2010 82 MISC.CVL. 17580/2010
C/W M.F'.A.NO.8320/2010
Lg"
N035, 15"?' CROSS
13'? MAIN, PRAKASH NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 021
4 SR1 RAMESII BABU
MAJOR BY AGE
C/O.SMT KALAVATHI
No.35, 1s'r CROSS
1s'r MAIN. RRAKASH NAGAR -
BANGALORE 560 021 I
5 SMT. LEELA
W/OSRI A MANOHAR
C/O.SMT KALAVATHI
NO.35, 131' CROSS
1ST MAIN, PRAKASH NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 021 __ '
6 SR1 A IVIANOHAR S/O.SRI5.ARUVN'ACHAI_.AM'.,
MAJOR BYAGE - V
C/O.SMT KALAvATIIIf_ V J
NO.35,15"3CRC?S':3, V O' "
1STMA11'I;'P%£A$H'I'JAGAR_ g
BANGAL,ORE'5,BO 0:21 ' RESRONDENTS
____ H * 3' {COMMON}
MFA NO.SSIB../.2O1I0'«FILED. (3/0 43 RULE 1(r] OF CPC,
AGAINST ORDER"~DATED_;3}€3.201O PASSED ON IA No.1 IN
O.S.NO.4§81/2010 ON THE FILE-OF XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
<3: SESS1ONS'*.J_UD_GE',_BANGA1:ORE, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED
U/ORDER 39 R1'ILESI SI 2 'CFC FOR TI.
..'iL_'IvIISC'.CvL.17SSO;--I-O' IN MFA NO.8616/2010 FILED
U/'ORDER¢'¥1 RULE 5(2) OF CPC PRAYING TO STAY THE ORDER DT.
°--.3.=:a,2OI0 RA'SSED"OI_\I IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4581/2010 ON THE FILE
OF __xLIv._*--ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL 81 SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE,.";F.ENDING CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSAL OF THE
ABOVE AP1?EAL;_.IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
MR/N';_NO.8320/2010 FHLED U/O 43 RULE 1{r} OF CPC
""~..AG_AINST TIIE ORDER DATED 3.9.2010 PASSED ON LA NO.3 IN
..O..S.No...4581/2010 ON THE FILE OF XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
* T&.ASESSI'ONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING IA NO.3 FILED FOR
APPEALS & MISCICVL. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
SWDAY, THE COURT DELEVERED THE F OLLOVVING:
M.F'.A.NO.8616/2010 <3: MISCCVL. 17580/2010
C/W M.F.A.NO.8320/2010
-3-
JUDGMENT
These two appeals by the plaintiff are
against an interlocutory order dated 03.09.201(). _
the trial Court — the Court of the XL1y Addit.ioI1al:_City: civil; ll ” aw
Judge, Bangalore, insofar as it relatelse
filed in the suit in O.S.No.45Er1′,(_20
order, the trial Court has by the
appellant/ plaintiff 1 2 of the CPC
for grant of an ad5interi’n1»:’oi’:de:’__of injunction
against the property and
has No.1 / defendant
No.1 (\y,ho–. ‘”-of the appellant/plaintiffl by
granting an,_order”ofltemporary injunction restraining the
appelianti/plaintiff:vi”frdrn alienating, encurnbering or
creating interest in respect of the suit property
till Altnhe of the suit. The suit property is a
–V residenti’al premises measuring 41 feet X 60 feet.
._l have heard the learned counsel appearing for the _
* and perused the impugned order.
W
/
lVI.F.A.NO.8616/2010 81 lVIlSC.CVL. 17580/2010
C/W lVI.F.A.NO.8320/20l0
A14 4 _
3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that
the plaint schedule property originally belonged toeolne
Smt. Meenakshiammal, who is the mother of H
No.1 and grand mother of the plaintiff. the”
plaintiff is that Srnt. Meenakshiammal e§:eci,ited’a:’Vx2yill,1v, .f
dated 13.8.1984 bequeathingthe,
in his favour. However, rnother i.e.,
defendant No.1 has copy” of the
subsequent registered executed by
plaint schedule
property, aforesaid earlier will
dated in dispute that the appellants’
mother who is vrespondentt. No.1 herein is residing in the
grou,ni;l floor ofllthei Vplaiint schedule premises. The case of
theniothergdefendant No.1 that her son ~– the plaintiff got
theIp],.ainta’_sched’ule property transferred to his name by
-V playing on her, prima facie, cannot be said to be
l”V..,witl’iQt1tlflsubstance. On the facts of the case, in my
opinion, the discretion exercised by the trial Court in
” “passing the impugned order cannot be said to be arbitrary
M.F.A.NO.8616/2010 & “MISC.CVL.17580/2010
C/W M.F.A.NO.8320/2010
-5-
or capricious to warrant interference. No ground to admit
the appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissec_1…L
In View of dismissal of ihe_ .– ‘ .
Misc.Cv1.17580/2010 filed in M._F,A_._No.$’6’1’6*XZ0’1’Qv”f01t.i ‘V
interim stay also stands dismissed.’-_ A i’
Appeals dismissed.
hkh.