IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.424 OF 2018 BETWEEN Smt. Sowmya Latha Rai, W/o. Sudhakar Rai, Aged about 59 years, R/at No.41, 2nd Cross, Achaiah Shetti Badavane, R.M.V.Extention, Ward No.35, Bengaluru-560094.
(By Sri. S.Rajashekar, Advocate) AND 1. Sri. Krishnakumar, S/o. Govindappa, Aged about 36 years, R/at K.G.Srinivasapura, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District-561011.
2. Smt. Sreemathi, W/o. Late Venkatesha, Aged about 45 years, R/at K.G.Srinivasapura, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District-561011.
3. Sri. Sagar, S/o. Late Venkatesha, …Petitioner Major, R/at K.G.Srinivasapura, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District-561011.
4. Sri. Dhanush, S/o. Late Venkatesha, Age not mentioned, R/at K.G.Srinivasapura, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District-561011.
5. The Special Land Acquistion Officer, Karnataka Industrial Development, Khanija Bhavana, 4th Floor, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560001.
(R1-served, unrepresented, vide order dated 23.08.2018 notice to R2-R5 dispensed with) …Respondents This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, against the order dated 18.07.2018 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.306/2015 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Rejecting the I.A.No.4 filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER Heard the petitioner’s counsel. All the respondents are served, but have not entered appearance before this court.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th July, 2018 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala in O.S.306/2015 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. The trial court has given a finding that the plaintiff has right over the suit property and there is a case for trial. It is also held that the plaint discloses cause of action. In order to examine whether these findings are correct or not, it is necessary to refer to the plaint averments.
3. Respondent no.1 filed a suit against the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 5 for permanent injunction to restrain the 5th respondent from disbursing the compensation amount in favour of 4th defendant i.e., the revision petitioner. In the plaint it is stated that one Venkatesh, husband of the 1st defendant and father of defendant no.2 and 3 being the absolute owner of the suit property agreed to sell the suit property to the mother of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.80,000/-. On 09.03.1999, a sale agreement came into existence. Venkatesh received an advance amount of Rs.60,000/- and agreed to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance of Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiff’s mother was ready to perform her part of the contract. She requested defendants 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed, but they went on postponing. It is also stated that the suit property was acquired by the 5th defendant. After acquisition, the 5th defendant passed an award. The plaintiff came to know that the 5th defendant was likely to disburse the compensation amount in favour of the 4th defendant. Therefore the plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the 5th defendant from disbursing the compensation amount in favour of the 4th defendant.
4. If the plaint is meaningfully read, it can be very well stated that the plaintiff has no right to sue. He cannot bring a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the 5th defendant from disbursing the compensation amount awarded after acquisition of land in accordance with law. According to the plaintiff the 1st defendant’s husband Venkatesh executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff’s mother for a total sale consideration of Rs.80,000/-. When the plaintiff himself has clearly stated in the plaint that the land was acquired, even a suit for specific performance could not have been filed. Therefore by filing a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff cannot restrain the statutory authority from disbursing the compensation amount. Permanent injunction is not the remedy available to the plaintiff. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the trial court should have held that the plaint does not disclose cause of action to grant the decree of permanent injunction. The trial court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC. Hence the following:
O R D E R Revision petition is allowed. Application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is allowed. Plaint is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE sd