IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3209 OF 2019 (CPC) BETWEEN Sri. M.Muninarappa, S/o. Muniyappa Reddy, Aged about 73 years, R/at Sadarmangala Village, Kadugodi Post, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru-560067.
(By Sri. G.R.Lakshmipathy Reddy, Advocate) AND 1. Sri. Vijay Kumar S.N., S/o. S.K.Nagaraj, Aged about 28 years, 2. Bharathi S.N., D/o. S.K.Nagaraj, Aged about 23 years, Both are residing at No.167, Sadaramangala, BBMP Ward No.54, Kadugodi Post, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru-560067.
3. Sri. S.K.Nagaraj, S/o. Late Kenchappa, Aged about 55 years, …Appellant 4. Sri. S.K.Venkatesh, S/o. Late Kenchappa, Aged about 61 years, R3 & R4 are R/at Sadaramangala Village, Kadugodi Post, Krishnaraja Puram Hobli, Bengaluru-560067.
…Respondents (By Sri. Arjun Bonsle, Advocate for R1 and R2) This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the order dated 25.02.2019 passed on I.A. No.1 & 2 in O.S.No.26485/2018 on the file of the XXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-20), disposing I.A.Nos.1 & 2 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.
This MFA coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following :
JUDGMENT Defendant no.3 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 25th February, 2019 on I.A.1 and 2 filed in O.S.No.26485/2018. By passing the impugned order the trial court has directed the plaintiffs and the defendants to maintain status quo in respect of suit schedule property.
2. The respondent 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and they are the children of respondent no.3. The appellant is said to be the purchaser from respondent no.3 of some extent of schedule property under a sale deed dated 07.01.2004 executed by 3rd respondent GPA holder. Respondent no.1 and 2 initiated partition suit and they have assailed the sale made by their father in favour of the appellant. Their contention is that the GPA dated 19.12.2013 is unregistered document and it was drawn on insufficient stamp paper. They deny the GPA and the sale deed executed by the GPA holder in favour of the appellant. The trial court, noticing the fact that the respondents 1 and 2 being the plaintiffs may get 2/3rd share in the suit property in case of decree in their favour and if for any reason defendant no.3 is allowed to complete the construction, it will result in multiplicity of proceedings and in that event, they will suffer lot of hardship, directed the plaintiffs and defendants to maintain status quo in respect of suit property.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that construction has already come up and that if the appellant is not allowed to complete the finishing work, his interest will be very much affected. Therefore the appellant’s counsel prays for modifying the interim order permitting the appellant to attend to the finishing work. The respondents’ counsel seriously objects to any modification of the impugned order. His submission is that the trial court’s observation with regard to GPA is to be borne in mind. The sale consequently made pursuant to GPA is also not valid and the appellant is permitted to complete the construction, the interest of respondents 1 and 2 will be affected. The appellant’s counsel has produced photographs which is not disputed by the respondents’ counsel. He submits that on the day when the application for injunction was made, the construction activity had just come up and there was no building. He has also produced photographs to show the status of the property on the date of application.
4. Having taken note of the present status of the property, it can be said that since the construction has come up to a certain extent, the appellant can be permitted to complete the construction and attend to the finishing work. The appellant can be directed not to undertake further construction. This order is passed keeping in mind the interest of both the parties. Therefore the impugned order is modified permitting the appellant to attend to the finishing work and directing him that he shall not undertake further construction. With these observations, appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE sd