IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO. 22003 OF 2014 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 27217 OF 2014 BETWEEN 1. Sri. B. Muniraju S/o Sri. Basappa Aged about 47 years 2. Smt. Nagamma W/o Sri. B. Muniraju Aged about 51 years 3. Ms. Nalinamma D/o Sri. B. Muniraju Aged about 29 years 4. Ms. Mala D/o Sri. B. Muniraju Aged about 27 years 5. Mr. Manjunath S/o Sri. B. Muniraju Aged about 27 years 6. Mr. Ravi S/o Sri. B. Muniraju Aged about 21 years All are residing at Kannurahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
7. Sri. Jayasheela Reddy S/o Sri. Gopalreddy Aged about 31 years No.5, 1st Cross Venkataramaiah Layout Ramamurthy Nagar Dodda Banaswadi Bangalore – 560 043.
... Petitioners (By Sri. Janardhana .G, Advocate) AND 1. Smt. C.K. Devakiammal W/o late Sri H.M. Yellappa Aged about 81 years 2. Sri. Y. Mohan S/o late Sri. H.M. Yellappa Aged about 63 years 3. Sri. H.Y. Manjunath S/o late Sri. H.M. Yellappa Aged about 61 years 4. Dr. H.Y. Harish S/o late Sri. H.M. Yellappa Aged about 51 years Respondents 1 to 4 are Residing at No.597/B, Old Madras Road, Hoskote – 562 114.
5. Smt. Y. Meenakshi D/o late Sri. H.M. Yellappa Aged about 58 years W/o Sri. B.N. Sathyaprem Kumar No.604, 4th Main Road Bhuvanagiri OMBR Layout, Bengaluru – 560 043.
6. Smt. Y. Pushpa D/o late Sri. H.M. Yellappa Aged about 54 years Advocate No.14-150A Radhakrishna Road Extension Kuppam Post – 517 424 Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh 7. Smt. Y. Mrudula D/o late Sri. H.M. Yellappa Aged about 39 years W/o Sri. Vijayakumar Laxmivenkateshwara Endave Royal School Road Konakakunte Cross Bangalore – 560 062.
... Respondents (By Miss Kusuma, Advocate for Sri. L.M. Chidanandayya, Advocate) These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned common order dated 28.04.2014 passed in M.A.No.47 of 2013 and MA No.48 of 2013 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District (Annexure-A) and restore the order dated 24.06.2013 passed on I.A. No.I in O.S. No.486 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District vide Annexure-F, and etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The defendants have filed the present writ petitions against the order dated 28.04.2014 made in M.A. No.47/2013 and M.A. No.48/2013 reversing the order dated 24.06.2013 made in O.S. No.486/2013 on I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC directing both the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of suit schedule properties so as to avoid complication.
2. The respondents who are plaintiffs before the trial Court, filed suit in O.S. No.486/2013 for declaration of title and also declaring that defendant Nos.1 to 6 have no right, title and interest or possession over the suit schedule properties to execute the various sale deeds referred in the prayer column and they are null and void ab-initio and non-est in eye of law and defendant No.7 has no right, title and interest or possession of the suit properties under the said sale deeds and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, whoever claiming under or through them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties at Item Nos.1 to 6 morefully described in schedule and contending that they are claiming to be absolute owners through their father Sri.
H.M. Yellappa. The defendants have no manner of right and title in respect of suit schedule properties and the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 6 as stated in the prayer column is not binding on the plaintiffs etc., 3. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 have filed written statement and denied the plaint averments and contended that the properties claimed by the plaintiffs are different from the properties owned by defendant Nos.1 to 6.
4. The defendant No.7 also filed written statement and contended that he is the owner of the properties in question on the basis of various sale deeds from Basappa and sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed two applications i.e., I.A. No.1/2013 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, etc., whoever claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and I.A. No.2/2013 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC restraining the 7th defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objection.
6. The trial Court considering the applications and objections, by the order dated 24.06.2013, dismissed the applications holding that plaintiffs have not made out any prima facie case.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs filed two miscellaneous appeals in M.A. No.47/2013 and M.A. No.48/2013.
8. The lower appellate Court, after considering the material on record, and on re-appreciation, by the impugned order dated 28.04.2014, set aside the order passed by the trial Court dated 24.06.2013 and allowed I.A. No.2 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, directing the 7th defendant – Jayasheelareddy or any person acting on his behalf from alienating or creating encumbrance over the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. and also allowed I.A. No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, directing both the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule properties so as to avoid complication. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed.
9. This court after issuing notice and hearing both the parties, by the order dated 28.04.2015, directed the 7th petitioner/7th defendant not to alienate, create third party interest, not to encumber the property and not to claim equity and permitted the 7th petitioner/7th defendant to proceed with the formation of layout in his property. The said order passed by this Court was challenged in Special Leave Petition Nos.14430-14431/2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 04.07.2016, has dismissed the special leave petitions holding that no ground for interference is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Sri. Janardhana G., learned counsel for petitioners fairly submits that the order passed by this Court and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are binding on the parties and 7th defendant will not claim any equity and that he will obey the order passed by this Court. The trial court may be directed to dispose of the suit in view of the controversy pending between the plaintiffs and defendants as expediously.
11. The said submission is placed on record.
12. Smt. Kusuma, learned counsel appearing for Sri L.M. Chidanandayya vehemently opposed the same and sought to justify the impugned order passed by the lower appellate court allowing the application and restraining the 7th defendant from alienating, encumbering the suit schedule properties and directing both parties to maintain status-quo.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the lower appellate court by the impugned order, allowed I.A. No.2 restraining the 7th defendant – Jayasheelareddy from alienating or creating encumbrance over the schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. The same was confirmed by this Court by the order dated 28.04.2015 and re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated supra.
14. In view of the same, without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is suffice to direct the trial Court to expedite the suit itself as early as possible, directing both the parties to obey the order passed by this Court and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of and the trial court is directed to expedite the suit subject to cooperation of both parties to the lis.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM