IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH , 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.3489/2019(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. MUNIYAMMA, WIFE OF LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHANTINAGAR, HOODI DAKALE, MAHADEVAPURA, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE-560048.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI BABU D. R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O LATE MUNITHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HOODI DAKALE, SHANTINAGARA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE-560048.
2. SMT. MANJULA, W/O NARAYANA SWAMY, D/O LATE MUNITHIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, NO.32, 1ST FLOOR, I MAIN, KATERAMMA TEMPLE, SULTAN PALYA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560032.
3. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O CHIKKA MARIYAPPA, D/O ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOSKUR VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560049 4. NAGAPPA S/O LATE ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, HOODI DAKALE, SHANTINAGARA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE-560048.
5. SMT. THIMAKKA W/O LATE CHIKKA NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, DOOR NO.78, 19TH CROSS, KAGGADASPURA, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560093.
6. NAGAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIPUJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HOODI DAKALE, SHANTI NAGARA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560048.
7. MUNITHIMAIAH, W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SRIRAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, AREKERE POST, YELAHANKA ROAD, A.K. COLONY, BANGALORE-560064.
PH NO.9620363575 8. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOODI DAKALE, SHANTI NAGARA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560048.
9. M/S SWAMY CHAMBERS BRICKS REPRESENTED BY SMT. V. AMUDHA, W/O SRI V. C. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SRI V. C. VIJAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OFFICE NO.10, 1ST A MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.
10. SMT. V. AMUDHA, W/O SRI V. C. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.336, 5TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034.
11. M/S CASA GRANDE GARDEN CITY BUILDER PRIVATE LIMITED, SINCE COMPANY REPRESENTED BY GUHA LAKSHMANAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.34/1, 3RD FLOOR, T-1 & T-2, MEANEE AVENUE ROAD, OPPOSITE TO LAKESIDE HOSPITAL, ULSOOR ROAD, NEAR ULSOOR LAKE, BANGALORE-560042.
12. M/S J M FINANCIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS LIMITED SINCE COMPANY REPRESENTED BY POORNIMA, 7TH FLOOR, CNERGY, APPASAHEB MARATHE GARG, PRABHADEVI, DADAR (WEST) MUMBAI-400025.
13. V. R. LAKSHMI PURNIMA W/O M. SOMASEKAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.405, VIKYATH SPRING APARTMENT, 5TH RIGHT CROSS, ALFA GARDEN LAYOUT, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560049.
14. SMT. SARITHA, W/O N. RAVINDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.FF-07, ROYAL SERENITY APARTMENT, 3RD MAIN ROAD, COUNTY LAYOUT, J.P NAGAR 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560083.
15. SMT. T. SRINADH, S/O T. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.407, VIKYATH SPRING APARTMENT, 5TH RIGHT CROSS, ALFA GARDEN LAYOUT, KODIGENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560049.
16. SRI DEVARAJULU NAIDU S/O LATE DHARMAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT KONDAIAH GARI VURU, CR KANDIGA POST, PENUMURU MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
17. SRI K. RUDRAIAH NAIDU S/O LATE SIDDAIAH NAIDU, R/AT NO.3-2/2, CHALEMPALEM, PENUMURU,CHITTOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
18. SRI R. SRINIVASA, S/O LATE REDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R./AT NO.19, 1ST MAIN, 1ST B CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560068.
19. SRI P. YUGANDHARA REDDY, S/O ESWARA REDDY PULICHERLA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT LAKSHMI NAGARA COLONY, PENUMURU POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517126.
20. SRI A. NARASIMHULU NAIDU S/O AVATI GURUSWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 25-7, KANNIKAPURAM, VARATHURU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517421.
21. SRI M. ARJUN S/O MUNISWAMY H. M, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT #92, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, BESIDE DIYA SCHOOL, MUNI NANJAPPA GARDEN, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036.
... RESPONDENTS **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.276/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 22.11.2018.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner – plaintiff filed the present writ petition against the order dated 22.11.2018 made in O.S. No.276/2018 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore rural district, Bangalore issuing emergent notice on I.A. Nos.1 & 4 and suit summons to the defendant Nos.1 to 13 and also notice on I.A. No.2 to the proposed defendant Nos.14 to 22 by ‘Registered Post Acknowledgment Due’.
2. The petitioner - plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties, contending that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 10 and there was no partition and the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A. No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of an order of Temporary Injunction; I.A. No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead the proposed defendant Nos.14 to 22 on the ground that they are the purchasers of the suit schedule properties; and I.A. No.4 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to maintain status quo in respect of the schedule properties.
3. The trial Court considering the applications by the impugned order dated 22.11.2018, refused to grant exparte injunction and issued emergent notice on I.A. Nos.1 and 4 and suit summons to the defendant Nos.1 to 13 and also notice on I.A. No.2 to the proposed defendant Nos.14 to 22. The trial Court recorded a finding that the photographs produced by the plaintiff along with the present application reveal that already there exists a building consisting of six floors, in the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiff herself, the said building is going to be constructed by the proposed defendants. Further, the offending building is almost in the verge of completion and therefore, no purpose will be served, if the said construction work is stopped by granting an order of status-quo.
4. Though the impugned order was passed by the trial Court on 22.11.2018, the writ petition came to be filed before this Court only on 21.1.2019. It clearly indicates that the plaintiff has not taken proper steps and if he is really has any interest in the properties, he ought to have taken proper steps in time. In a suit for partition, ultimately if the plaintiff is able to prove that he is entitled to partition, her right will not be deprived by mere constructing the building by the defendants. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the matter is posted on 22.2.2019, the defendants not yet served. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-