IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2944 OF 2010(CPC) BETWEEN Sri. B.R.Ramesh, S/o. B.Rangaiah Shetty, Aged about 35 years, Venkateshwara Nagara, Venkateshpura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, (By Sri. K.N.Nitish, Advocate) AND M/s. C & C Venture Pvt. Ltd., 7th Floor, Meridian Commercial Tower, Windsar Palace, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
Rep by its Managing Director (By M/s. Susheel Associates, Advocate) …Appellant …Respondent This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 06.03.2010 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.516/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, dismissing I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for T.I.
This MFA coming on for hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT The plaintiff in this appeal has challenged the order dated 6th March, 2010 passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
2. The appellant being the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of his title in respect of 4 acres of land in New Sy.No.79 (Sy.No.21) of Poojanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk and consequential relief of permanent injunction. He also made an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the plaint schedule property from one Muniyappa on 22.08.2007 for a consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. He alleged that on 18.09.2007 defendant represented by its office bearers attempted to enter upon the plaint schedule property by digging foundation. The defendant contended that it purchased 2 acres of land in the same survey number and denied the interference alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant also stated that the plaintiff did not purchase the property for Rs.1,20,00,000/- as stated by him in the plaint, but the sale consideration was for Rs.6,70,00,000/- and that the plaintiff cheated the owner Muniyappa to an extent of Rs.5,00,50,000/-.
3. Considering the rival pleas and materials placed on record, the trial court came to conclusion that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima face case for granting temporary injunction.
4. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent.
5. If the materials on records are considered, it is found that the defendant actually does not dispute purchase of 4 acres of land i.e., the plaint schedule property from Muniyappa. It is also undisputed fact that the defendant purchased 2 acres of land. It is relevant to mention here that before selling the property to the plaintiff and defendant, Muniyappa had obtained permission from the concerned authority for selling the land as it was granted to him under the provisions of The Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. So when the two sale transactions were not disputed, it is not understandable as to how the trial court could have arrived at a conclusion that there was suppression of writ petition said to have been filed by S.M.Nagaaraj. The plaint schedule property is agricultural land. On the material facts, the trial court should have come to conclusion that the same status should have been maintained till the disposal of the suit. Even the order sheet maintained in this appeal shows that since 21.04.2010 the order of status quo has been in force. In these facts and circumstances, the status quo order with regard to nature of the plaint schedule property will suffice. Therefore the following :
ORDER Appeal is allowed. Impugned order is modified. The parties are directed to maintain the agricultural nature of the plaint schedule property till disposal of the suit on merits.
Sd/- JUDGE sd