IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.11820/2016(GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. MR. ZIAULLA S/O GAFAR SAB AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SMT. SHAMSHAD W/O ZIAULLA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. SMT. MEHAR TAJ D/O ZIAULLA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 4. SMT. KAMAR TAJ D/O ZIAULLA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 5. MR.MOHAMMED RAFI S/O ZIAULLA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 6. SMT. SHABEEN TAJ W/O MOHAMMED RAFI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 7. SMT. HASEEN TAJ D/O ZIAULLA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKOORU DISTRICT-572137.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI LAKSHMI S. B., ADVOCATE) AND:
MR. P. DEVARAJU S/O PUTTASHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDNG AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKOOR DISTRICT-572137.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON I.A.1 DATED 30.10.2015 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SIRA IN O.S.236/2015 SAME IS CONFIRMED THE ORDERS ON I.A.1 IN M.A.18/2015 AT ANNEXURE-N PASSED BY THE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRA DATED 20.01.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The unsuccessful defendants are before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the ‘registered agreement of sale without possession’ dated 5.3.2011 and the unregistered bogya patra/lease deed executed on the same day i.e., 5.6.2011 delivering possession in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The trial Court considering registered agreement of sale dated 5.6.2011, lease deed dated 5.3.2011, Grant Certificate and RTC in respect of the suit schedule property, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The lower appellate Court on reconsidering the entire material on record concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Smt. Lakshmi S.B., learned counsel for the petitioners - defendants vehemently contended that though the ‘registered agreement of sale without possession’ executed on 5.3.2011, on the same day another lease deed alleged to have been executed wherein it is shown that the possession has been delivered to the respondent - plaintiff. She contended that the said document is created, but based on the said document, RTC. also came to be entered.
5. Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.
6. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, in the interest of justice, it is suffice to direct the trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously subject to cooperation from both the parties.
7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself at the earliest subject to cooperation of learned counsel for the parties.
All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-