IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.5502 OF 2015 (CPC) BETWEEN:
M/S NAM ESTATES PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT, NO.150, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR.B.S.NARAYANAN. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKHAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI MUNISWAMY, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. SMT.YELLAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED 38 YEARS, 3. SRI LOKESH, S/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, 4. SMT.MANJULA, D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.140, B.RAMAIAH COLONY, MUTHYALANAGAR, MSRIT POST, BENGALURU – 54.
5. SRI MOTAPPA, S/O LATE EKOLAGARABOVI, VENKATABOVI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 6. SMT.VENKATAMMA, W/O MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 7. SRI JAYARAM, S/O MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 8. SRI PEDDANNA, S/O MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 9. SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, S/O MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 10.SMT.YELLAMMA, D/O MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 11.SMT.CHANNAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 12.SMT.SALLAPURI, D/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 13.SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA, D/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 14.SMT.SHYAMALA, D/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESPONDENT 5 TO 14 ARE R/AT BOVI PALYA, NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560094.
15.SRI.V.S.ARAVINDAN, S/O V.R.SINGARACHARI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.49/1, 2ND CROSS, NANJAPPA GARDEN, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 32. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.F.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 NOTICE TO R5 TO R15 D/W) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2015 PASSED ON IA NO.1 O.S.NO.244/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant who is the defendant No.12 for setting aside the order on IA I in O.S. No.244/2015 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli.
3. It is the case of the appellant that the suit schedule property was purchased by the Company from the GPA holder of defendant Nos.1 to 6. The said schedule property was measuring 60 feet East to West and 80 feet North to South situated in Khaneshumari No.14/14 (old No.24, then No.13/13), situated at Bovi Palya, Navarathna Agrahara Dhakale, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. On hearing the parties interim orders on I.A.1 was passed restraining the appellant from alienating the schedule property. Being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal was preferred.
4. During the course arguments the counsel for the appellant has filed a memo along with three letters issued by the office of Doddajala Grama Panchayath, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Out of them two letters disclose that the Gram Panchayath had resolved to widen the road from 9 meters to 18 meters and the concerned owners of the land were requested to cooperate in this regard. The third letter issued by the Director of appellant company which is received in the office of Development Officer, Doddajala Grama Panchayath, Bengaluru North Taluk discloses that several properties bearing Kaneshumari numbers including the Kaneshumari No.14/14 which is the schedule property have been given to the Doddajala Grama Panchayath for the purpose of widening of the road. Thus, it is evident that according to the appellant the suit schedule property is not in existence. The same has been utilized for widening of the road developed by Doddajala Grama Panchayath.
5. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that since the schedule property which was purchased by the appellant company is utilized for widening of the road the plaintiff, the respondent has no legal right to cause obstruction for user of the road. As could be seen from the order, the temporary injunction was only for restraining the defendant No.12 from alienating the schedule property. In view of the surrender of the said property by the respondent for the purpose of developing the road by the Doddajala Grama Panchayath. The suit schedule property has become part of public road. Thus, the interim orders passed in respect of schedule property do not survive for consideration. Hence there are no valid grounds to admit the appeal.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl