IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA BETWEEN WRIT PETITION NOs.20488/2014 AND 50206/2014(GM-CPC) SMT K SHANTHNAMMA W/O SRI MUNIANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT 4TH WARD, GANGADHARAPURA, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 560 321 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI B K CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI ANWAR S/O LATE SRI REHMAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT KHATHALIMAKHAN, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 321 2. SRI SIKANDHAR S/O SRI ABDUL RASHEED, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT GANIGARAPET, DODDABALLPURA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 321. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.DAYAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5.7.2010 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT DODDABALLAPUR IN O.S. NO.344/2010 DATED 3.11.2010 ON I.A.NO.1 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND I.A. NO.2 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC FOR VACATING THE INTERIM ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, AT DODDABALLAPUR IN M.A. NO. 14/2010 DATED 7.10.2013 DISMISSING NOT ONLY THE APPEAL BUT ALSO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT ON I.A. NO.1 IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF VIDE ANNEXURE-B, AND GRANT AN AD-INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION BY ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN O.S. NO.344/2010 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Plaintiff in OS.No.344/2010 on the file of Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapur, has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 7.10.2013 passed in MA.No.14/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapur, which was filed against the order passed on IAs.1 and 2 in OS.No.344/2010. The parties herein are referred to by their rank in the court below.
2. Brief facts leading to these writ petitions are as under:
According to the plaintiff, she is the owner of vacant site bearing No.271 situated at 4th Ward Rojipura, Doddaballapur Town, Bengaluru Rural District, measuring east to west 25 feet and north to south 30 feet. The said property was purchased by her under a registered sale deed dated 2.12.2006 and subsequently, the same was rectified by amending the boundary to the said agreement. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that the defendants in the said suit namely, Anwar and Sikhandar are interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property which was purchased by her under registered sale deed.
3. In the said suit in OS.No.344/2010 initially an order of status quo was granted on an application filed by her for the relief of temporary injunction. Not being satisfied with that she preferred an appeal in MA.No.14/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapur, wherein said appeal was contested by defendants 1 and 2 contending that the property claimed in the original suit is not the property of plaintiff and that is the site which is granted in favour of 1st defendant by the Municipality. It is on the basis of said objection raised and also based on the documents which are produced by the parties before the lower appellate court, the lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the status quo order which was granted by the trial court in the absence of any counter appeal by the respondents in the said appeal. The said order of lower appellate court is sought to be challenged in these writ petitions.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as contesting respondents. On going through the order impugned with reference to the grounds urged in the writ petition, it is seen that though the plaintiff is claiming title to the property under a registered sale deed executed in her favour, there is nothing on record to show the title of her vendor to demonstrate that she has purchased the suit schedule property from the person having valid title to the said property. Though title to the property is not in question before the trial court, the trial court as well as lower appellate court have looked in to prima facie ownership of the parties with reference to the property in question. Infact, as against the claim of plaintiff that she has purchased the property from one Raghavendra, she was not able to demonstrate his title to the property in question for the relief of injunction. However, the defendants were able to demonstrate that the said property was granted in favour of 1st defendant by the Municipality under Grant Certificate, which is produced before the court below. Therefore, on appreciation of the material on record, the lower appellate court has rightly felt that in the fact situation the plaintiff is not even entitled to the relief of status quo, accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff for temporary injunction in totality and set aside the status quo order granted by the court below, which appears to be just and proper.
5. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the lower appellate court could not have dismissed his appeal in taking away the right which was accumulated in securing status quo order in the court below when there is no counter appeal by the defendants.
6. In the fact situation, it is clearly seen that the lower appellate court having seen that there is no semblance of right with the plaintiff’s predecessor in title to the suit property has taken the right decision, which appears to be just and proper. In that view of the matter, question of interfering with the order impugned does not arise in these writ petitions. However, any observation made in these writ petitions would not come in the way of the plaintiff in independently establishing her title to the suit property on the basis of the documents which are standing in her name.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/