IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE W.P.Nos.35605/2017 & 41172-73/2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. Sri C.Srinivas, S/o late Channanarasimhaiah, Aged about 40 years.
2. Smt. H.N.Rekha, W/o C.Srinivas, Aged about 32 years.
Both residing at No.114, “Srinilaya”, 1st Main Road, Behind Health Department’s Water Tank, Annapoorneshwarinagar, Magadi Road, Bangalore – 91. … PETITIONERS (By Sri Adithya Kumar.H.R., Adv. for Sri Nagabhushana.S., Adv.) AND:
1. Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o late Ramanna, Aged about 65 years.
2. Smt. Renuka, D/o late Ramanna, Aged about 40 years.
Both are r/o Kadalur village, Athagur Hobli, Madur Taluk.
3. Smt. Mangalamma, W/o late Doddagooligowda, Aged about 38 years, R/o Marasinganahalli village, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk – 571 428.
4. Smt. Rathna, W/o late Muthuraju, Aged about 40 years.
5. R.M.Hemanth, S/o late Muthuraju, Aged about 13 years.
6. R.M.Poorvashree, D/o late Muthuraju, Aged about 10 years.
Since respondent Nos.5 & 6 are minors, represented by their next friend/guardian/mother Smt. Rathna – respondent No.4.
7. R.Ashwath, S/o late Ramanna, Aged about 34 years.
All are residents of Rudrakshipura village, Athagur Hobli, Maddur Taluk – 571 428. … RESPONDENTS These writ petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, in M.A.No.51/2016 setting aside the order dated 07.09.2016 passed on IA No.1, 2 & 7 in O.S.No.18/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur.
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 07.09.2016 as well as the order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions briefly stated are, that the respondents filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration. Along with the suit, the respondents filed an application seeking temporary injunction. Petitioners filed objections, in which inter alia it was alleged that the suit filed by the respondents was barred by limitation. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, by an order dated 07.09.2016 inter alia held that the respondents have been able to make out a prima facie case and in case injunction as prayed for is not granted, they would suffer irreparable injury. It was further held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the respondents. The Trial Court by the aforesaid order, restrained the petitioners herein from alienating the property in question. Being aggrieved, petitioners preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court by order dated 24.04.2017 affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit was filed in the year 2015, in which challenge was made to the sale deed which was executed in the year 2007. It is further submitted that the respondents had preferred an objection in the year 2011 before the Tahsildar with regard to the change of khatha, and thus, they were aware about the execution of the sale deed in the year 2011 itself, and therefore, the suit filed by the respondents was barred by limitation. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Trial Court.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.
5. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the Trial Court after meticulous appreciation of the material on record, has held that plaintiffs have been able to make out a prima facie case and has restrained the petitioners herein from alienating the property. The aforesaid order of injunction is in force for more than two years against the petitioners. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the Appellate Court inter alia holding that grant of injunction has been the discretion exercised by mere principles of law by the Trial Court.
6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioners have not specifically argued the question with regard to the maintainability of the suit. Even otherwise, it has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the objection with regard to maintainability of the suit was taken by way of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the same has been rejected by the Trial Court. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the discretion to deal with the prayer for injunction has been exercised on sound principles of law. The concurrent findings of fact have been recorded against the petitioners and the same has neither been perverse nor arbitrary. Therefore, they are not open for interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, reference can be made to the decisions in the case of ‘ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. S.P. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER’, (2009)12 SCC 776 and in the case of ‘SKYLINE EDUCATION INSTITUTE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS S.L.VASWANI & ANOTHER’, (2010)2 SCC 142.
6. In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any ground to interfere in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to dispose of the suit, expeditiously, in accordance with law. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KK