Mr.Pksomashekara Reddy, S/O Krishnareddy, Aged About 57 Years

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF APRIL 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA M.F.A.NO.4264/2012 (CPC) BETWEEN: Mr.P.K.Somashekara Reddy, S/o Krishnareddy, Aged about 57 years R/at NO.412, Panathur, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East taluk, Bengaluru-83. .. Appellant [By Sri.Rajagopala Naidu, Adv.] AND: 1. Mrs.Anasuya W/o Late K. Govindaraj, Aged about 66 years, 2. Mr.G.Umesh S/o Late K.Govindaraj, Aged about 46 years, 3. Mr.G.Kemparaju, S/o Late K.Govindaraj, Aged about 43 years 4. Mr.G.Venkatesh S/o Late K.Govindaraj, Aged about 40 years 2 Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are R/at NO.8/1, G.M.Palya, Behind BEML Factory, New Thippasandra Post Bengalurur-75. 5. Mr.M.Srinivasa, S/o Late Muniyappa, Aged about 46 years, R/at No.797, 12 th Cross, 3 rd Main, HAL 3 rd State, Bengaluru-75 6. Mrs. R.Muttu Bai, w/o Late R.J.Ramakrishna, Aged about 66 years 7. Mrs. Padmavathi, W/o Late R.Muniswamy, Aged about 45 years, 8. Miss. M.Saranya, d/o Late R. Muniswamy, Aged about 23 years 9. Miss. M.Sandhya D/o Late R. Muniswamy, Aged about 19 years, 10. Master M. Sandeep, S/o Late R. Muniswamy, Aged about 18 years 11. Babu M. Sukanya, D/o Late R. Muniswamy, Aged about 11 years, Respondent No.10 & 11 are Minors represented by their Mother Smt.Padmavathi, Respondent Nos.6 to 11 are 3 r/at No.82, Rajagopal Mudaliar Road, Austin Town, Bengaluru-47. 12. Mr.P.Devaraj S/o Late Ponnuswamy, Aged about 71 years, 13. Mr.D.Raja, S/o P.Devaraj, Aged about 45 years, 14. Mr.D.Rajendran, S/o P.Devaraj, Aged about 43 years, 15. Mr.D.Rajashekar S/o P.Devaraj, Aged about 41 years, 16. Mr.D.Raghu, S/o P.Devaraj, Aged about 37 years, Respondents 12 to 16 are r/at No.18, Mariyamman Koil Street, Jai Bharathnagar, Bengaluru-33 17. The Joint Commissioner (East) Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. 18. The Commissioner Bengaluru, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bangaluru. … Respondents [By Sri.K.Chandrashekar, Adv. For R-1 to R-4; R-5 served and unrepresented and Notice to R-6 to R-18 is dispensed with vide order 4 dated 20.11.2012.] This MFA is Filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) oF CPC against order dated 15.03.2012 passed on I.A. in O.S.No.25357/07 on the File oF XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore, allowing application Filed U/O 39 Rule 1 and 2 oF CPC. This MFA coming For admission this day, the Court delivered the Following: J U D G M E N T First deFendant in O.S.No.25357/07 on the File oF XXVIII Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore has come up in this appeal impugning order dated 15.3.2012 passed on unnumbered application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 oF CPC restraining him From alienating Flats built in the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same present appeal is Filed. 2. It is not in dispute that plaintiFFs have Filed a suit challenging sale oF suit schedule property made in Favour oF First respondent. It is not in dispute that similar application was Filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 oF CPC which is at annexure-D For the very same relieF. While disposing oF the said application, an order 5 was passed permitting First deFendant in the said suit who is appellant herein permitting him to complete construction without claiming equity in respect oF construction in the event he Fail in the said suit. ThereaFter the present application is Filed For similar relieF which is allowed passing an order restraining the First deFendant From selling suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same present appeal is Filed on the ground that earlier application Filed by him is disposed oF by an order dated 10.4.2007. In view oF that question oF passing Further order on second application oF similar nature in restraining the appellant i.e., First deFendant in the court below in selling one oF the apartment constructed in the suit schedule property, does not survive. 3. Heard learned counsel For the appellant and also contesting respondents. 4. On going through the order impugned, it is seen that original suit is For the relieF oF declaration oF sale deed oF suit schedule property in Favour oF First 6 deFendant in the court below, the appellant herein. It is stated that the First deFendant in the original suit had already commenced construction on disputed property as on the date oF suit and pursuant to the interim order dated 10.4.2007, he has also completed the construction. It is submitted that as on the date oF order passed on 10.4.2007 he had sold all the apartments constructed in the suit schedule property except one apartment. According to him in view oF the order impugned, the sale oF remaining apartment is being stalled. 5. On going through the material on record it is clearly seen that at this juncture question oF modiFying order impugned does not arise. Assuming For a moment that iF plaintiFF in Original suit succeeds in getting judgment and decree holding sale oF suit schedule property in Favour oF First deFendant as erroneous, at least one apartment would be available to her immediately and she would be having right to proceed against owners oF other apartments in the said building. IF order impugned is modiFied and First deFendant is 7 permitted to sell that apartment also, it would put the interest oF the plaintiFFs who are respondents herein into jeopardy and will lead to multiplicity oF proceedings between parties. ThereFore considering the Facts and circumstances oF the case, recalling or modiFying the order impugned does not arise. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. SD/- JUDGE RS/* .

Load more