IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5202/2019 (CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI D/O GURUVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. SRI. GOPINATH REDDY S/O GURUVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SRI. MURALI G @ MURALI REDDY S/O GURUVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O GURUVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5. SMT. MUNILAKSHMI D/O GURUVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 6. SMT. MANGALA GOWRI D/O GURUVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.333 SITE NOs.5 & 6 9TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS AKKIYAPPA GARDEN, MOHANKUMAR NAGAR YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE – 560 022 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI H.J.ANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. RAJENDRA REDDY S/O GURUVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. SMT. VASANTHA W/O RAJENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.333 SITES NO.5 & 6, 9TH MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, AKKIYAPPA GARDEN MOHANKUMAR NAGAR YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE – 560 022 3. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR K. S/O R.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.474/D, 1ST B CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE BANGALORE – 560 054. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2019 PASSED ON IA NOS.1, 2 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.7706/2018 ON THE FILE OF XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING I.A.NOS.1 & 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ALLOWING I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T 1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7706/2018 on the file of XLIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The trial court has dismissed their applications-I.A.Nos.1 & 2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. The plaintiffs’ suit is for partition. In the said suit, they had filed the application- I.A.No.1 for restraining defendant no.3 from interfering with their possession of the suit property and I.A.No.2 for restraining defendant no.3 from alienating the suit property.
2. Counsel for defendant no.3/respondent no.3 submits that his client has no intention to sell the suit property. The submission of learned counsel for respondent no.3 is placed on record as it safeguards the interest of the appellants/plaintiffs also. As regards possession, it is a clear observation of the trial court that the suit property is in the possession of defendant no.3. Therefore, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession as per the findings of the trial court without changing or altering the nature of the property.
The appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.