IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.293 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHARATHI W/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. SRI. MAHADEVA S/O LAXMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
3. SRI. SOMASHEKAR S/O BHOPAJJA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
4. SRI. YATHISH S/O K.S. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
5. SRI. PUNEETH S/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
6. SRI. RAVIRAJ S/O MOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
7. RAJANNA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
8. RAMANNA S/O GIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
9. HARISH S/O KARIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
10. MAHESH S/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
11. RAMAKRISHNA @ KRISHNA S/O GAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
12. SHEKAR @ SHEKHI S/O LAXMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
13. DEVARAJU S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT A.K. COLONY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-45.
(BY MR. PRATHEEP K.C. ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
GIRIGOWDA S/O C.J. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT. KOTE, PRAPHATH COMPLEX BEHIND LIC OFFICE, A.K. COLONY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-45.
(BY MR. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV., FOR C/R) - - -
… PETITIONERS … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31-8-2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATNA ON IA NO.2 IN O.S. NO.302/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER For the reasons assigned, memo filed is accepted. None for the petitioner.
Mr.K.R.Lingaraju, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Appellate Court by which the appeal preferred by the appellants therein under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code‘ for short) has been dismissed and the order of the Trial Court dated 31.08.2017 granting injunction restraining the appellants therein from obstructing the construction of temporary structure over the suit property and also from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property has been upheld.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the respondent filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction inter alia on the ground that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property which devolved on the plaintiff in the partition on 08.01.1987. It was further pleaded that the aforesaid property was purchased by the grand father of the plaintiff on 31.10.1926 by registered sale deed. The son of the plaintiff had obtained a license to run a mobile shop and electricity connection was also taken. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and is in peaceful possession of the same. However, the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession over the property in question. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was also filed.
5. The defendants filed a reply as well as the written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the suit schedule properties were reserved for Keshavadevaru Temple and is in possession of its Archak namely Mr.Srinivasa Iyengar. It was further pleaded that out of 24 guntas, 14 guntas was required for the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs have illegally got their names mutated in the mutation record in colluding with the officers.
6. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, by an order dated 31.08.2017, found that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case. The Trial Court took into account the copy of the tax demand register extracts in which the property was recorded in the name of the plaintiff. The Trial Court also relied on the receipt with regard to payment of self-
tax assessment as well as electricity bill while arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in question. The Trial Court, vide order dated 31.08.2017, granted an injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit lands. Being aggrieved, the defendant filed an appeal. The aforesaid order has been confirmed in appeal.
7. I have carefully considered the material available on record. The grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The discretion to deal with the grant of injunction has been exercised on the principles of law by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. The concurrent findings of fact neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423].
9. Further, taking into account the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2016, the Trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV