IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.53 OF 2019 BETWEEN 1. MR. K.DHANABALAN, S/O MR. J.KRISHNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SMT. VAITHEHI BALAN, W/O MR. K.DHANABALAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/A NO.5, SECOND STREET, SIVALINGAIAH COLONY, MURUGESHPALYA, BENGALURU-560 017.
3. MR. NISHU ALAX, S/O MR. ALAX, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT GOLDEN CASTLE, 40 FEET ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008.
4. FLG. OFFICER ANJANEYA M S/O MR. MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, H.NO.49, AVALAPPA LANE, BESIDE CHINNAMMA JUNJAPPA, KALYANA MANTAP, NAL ROAD, BENGALURU-560 017.
5. MS. AMITA GEORGE, D/O MR. K.C.GEORGE, GOLDEN CASTLE, 40 FEET ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, ULSOOR BENGALURU-560 008.
6. SMT. BEENA JOYCE GEORGE, W/O MR. JOYCE, D/O MR. K.C.GEORGE, GOLDEN CASTLE, 40 FEET ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM, ULSOOR BENGALURU-560 008.
7. LT. COL.R.C. SHARMA, S/O MR. S.N.SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 8. SMT. CHANDERKANTHA SHARMA, D/O MR. JIT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT J-140, SENA VIHAR, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 043.
9. SMT. THANGAM GEORGE, W/O LT.COL GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT GOLDEN CASTLE, 40 FEET ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 008.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O MR.H.THIPPA REDDY, NO.386, UMASHANKAR FARM HOUSE, KUNDALAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 037.
2. MR. MUNIVENKATAPPA, S/O LATE SMT. MUNIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. MR. NARAYANA SINCE DEAD BY LR’S 3(a) SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.132, MASJID ROAD, HOODI VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 048.
4. MR. SRINIVASA, S/O LATE SMT. MUNIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.174, NEAR THIMMA REDDY BUILDING, VIVEKANANDA ASHRAMA, HOODI VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 048.
5. MR. SHANKAR, S/O LATE SMT. MUNIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NEXT TO SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE, DODDADYAVASANDRA , K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 016.
6. MR. H.K.VENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD HIS LR’S 6(a) MR.V. NAGARAJ, S/O LATE H.K.VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.7, 7TH CROSS, ANEPALYA, AUDUGODI POST BENGALURU-560 030.
6(b) SMT. VASANTHA, W/O MR. SRINIVASA, D/O LATE SRI. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, FIRST MAIN ROAD, PILLAPPA BUILDING, OPP.THIRUMALA TRADERS, CHIKKABOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, G.K.V.K. POST, BENGALURU-560 065.
6(c) MR. VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE SRI VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/At NEAR SRI HONNAMMA TEMPLE, BHAVANI ROAD, HEBBAGODI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU -560 099.
6(d) SMT. PADMA W/O MR. MUNISWAMY, D/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SLUM BOAR, CHIKKA BOMMASANDRA, GKVK POST, BENGALURU -560 065, 6(e) SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O MR. MUNIYAPPA, D/O LATE MR. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SRI. DHARMARAYA TEMPLE STREET, RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, WHITE FIELD POST, BENGALURU-560 066.
6(f) SMT MANJULA (ANGADI), W/O MR. SHIVAKUMAR, D/O LATE SRI. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/At DODDAKUNTE(COX TOWN), SRI. APPANNA GARDEN BRANCH, OPP. SRI KAUVERAMMA TEMPLE, SLUM AREA, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005 7. SMT. CHIKKA TAYAMMA, D/O LATE SRI. KAKAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE 8. SRI K MUNIYAPPA D/O LATE SRI KAKAPPA MAJOR IN AGE BOTH SL.Nos.7 & 8 ARE R/AT HOODI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N.VIJAY SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 TO R8-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02- 09-2014 PASSED ON IA.NO.14 IN O.S.NO.2242/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.14 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are before this Court under Section 115 of CPC, assailing the order dated 02-9-2014 on I.A.No.14 passed in O.S.No.2242/2006 on the file of the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioners are defendants and respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.2242/2006. The plaintiff filed a suit praying for the following reliefs:
a) for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the ‘B’ schedule property, the converted land being the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the pendency of the suits instituted by the defendants 1 to 9 and or earlier Encumbrances if any, and consequently to declare that the documents relied upon by the defendants 1 to 9 are not binding on the plaintiff as the same are void abinitio;
b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, agents, or servants or any person or persons claiming under them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the ‘B’ schedule property, the converted land; and c) to grant such other consequential relief or reliefs that this hon’ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case and decree the suit with costs in the interest of justice.
3. When the suit was at the stage of recording evidence, the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of CPC. In the application, the defendants contended that they have filed the original suits in O.S.Nos.8384/2002 to 8392/2002 against the defendant Nos.10 to 16 and the suits against them is decreed. During the pendency of the above suits, defendant Nos.10 to 16 sold the property in favour of the plaintiff which is prohibited under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Further contended that the suit itself is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. The plaintiff opposed the said application by filing objections.
4. The trial Court under impugned order rejected the application-I.A.No.14 against which the defendants are before this Court in this civil revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants and learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff. Perused the petition papers.
6. The plaintiff’s suit is for declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. His case is that without noticing pendency of the suits, he has purchased the suit schedule property from the defendants-petitioners. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not a party in O.S.Nos.8384/2002 to 8392/2002 filed against the defendant Nos.10 to 16. Whether the decree passed in those suits is binding on the plaintiff and whether the said suits are filed in respect of suit schedule properties are the matter for trial. It is stated that the suit is already at the stage of evidence. Therefore, on going through the suit averments, I am of the view that the plaintiff has made out a case for trial. Hence, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application-I.A.No.14 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of CPC. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE SMJ