IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR M.F.A.No.1092/2019 (CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI E GOVINDA NAIDU S/O LATE E.NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.659, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, RANGAPPA LAYOUT, B.S.K. III STAGE BENGALURU-560 085.
2. SRI E JAYACHANDRA NAIDU S/O LATE E.NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.137, CHANDRA RESIDENCY FLAT NO.301, 9TH MAIN, DR. RAJ ROAD, BSK I STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, SRINIVASANAGAR BENGALURU-560 050 SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE K SRINIVASULU NAIDU D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU SINCE DEAD, REPTD. BY HER LRS APPELLANTS 3 TO 6 3. SRI K BALAKRISHNA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE K SRINIVASULU NAIDU R/AT NO.14, 3RD CROSS, KEB ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR NEAR STERLING APARTMENTS BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.
4. SMT E RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O SRI E GOVINDA NAIDU R/AT 659, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR RANGAPPA LAYOUT, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.
5. SMT. E. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O SRI E.JAYACHADNRA NAIDU R/AT NO.1377, CHANDRA RESIDENCY FLAT NO.301 9TH MAIN, DR. RAJ ROAD, BSK I STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, SRINIVASANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050 6. SMT K PARVATHI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O SRI K SRINIVASULU NAIDU R/AT NEW KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.
(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANTS AND:
SMT. KRISHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O P AILU NAIDU, R/AT NO.1496, 6TH CROSS 9TH MAIN ROAD, BSK 1ST STAGE, II BLOCK, SRINIVASANAGAR BENGALURU-560 050.
(BY SRI.PRADEEP H S, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS M.F.A IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.15.12.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4427/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-16), ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1& 2 OF CPC.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal is by the defendants in O.S.No.4427/2016 on the file of XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Plaintiff in the said suit is the sister of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. She has sought share in the plaint schedule properties stating that all the properties were acquired by his father late Sri.E. Narayanaswamy Naidu. The defendants contend that the properties belong to them exclusively, it did not belong to their father and therefore, plaintiff has no right to claim the partition.
2. The learned counsel for appellants submit that the trial Court has committed an error in granting an order of injunction against the defendants without considering the number of documents produced by them. It is his argument that if these documents had been considered, it was possible to pass an order of temporary injunction against the defendants.
3. Though the learned counsel for respondent submits that all the properties were acquired by late Sri.
E. Narayanaswamy Naidu and there is nothing infirmity in the trial court’s order, if the impugned order is perused, I do not find any discussion on the materials produced by the defendants and the clear stand taken by them in the written statement. The trial court appears to have come to the conclusion on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint. While deciding the application of temporary injunction, it is necessary that the Court has to take a proper decision by looking into the materials produced by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. Since the impugned order does not show discussion on the documents produced by the defendants and the contentions taken by them in the written statement, I find that this order needs to be set aside and the matter to be remanded to the trial court for disposal of I.A.No.1 once again according to law.
4. Hence, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter stands remanded to the trial Court for deciding I.A.No.1 by considering the case of the plaintiff as also the defendants.
Till the disposal of I.A.No.1, the defendants shall not make any attempt to alienate the property. The trial Court shall decide the application expeditiously, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of records.
SD/- JUDGE Srl.