1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
W.P. NO 39795 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN
1.NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE GARE MUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 67YEARS R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK .. PETITIONER
(By Sri.G MANIVANNAN – ADV. )
AND
1.MANJU S/O NAGAPPA MAJOR, R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
2.SMT PILLAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA MAJOR, R/A KYASANAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK
3.SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE NAGAPPA
2
W/O NAGAPPA MAJOR, R/A HOSUR ROAD SINGASANDRA POST BANGALORE-560068
4.SMT GOWRAMMA D/O LATE NAGAPPA MAJOR, R/A KALLUKUNTE AGRAHARA CHIKKATHIRUPATHI POST MALUR TALUK 563 130
5.SMT LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE NAGAPPA MAJOR, R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
6.SMT VIJAYAMMA D/O NAGAPPA; W/O ANNAYYA MAJOR, R/A INDLAWADI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK
7.MARIYAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRs
7a. SMT SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
7b. SMT S M MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA W/O GANESH BABU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
7c. S M VASANTH KUMAR D/O LATE MARIYAPPA W/O JAYARAMAPPA AGED ABOTU 46 YEARS
3
7d. S M RAVI S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
7e. S M HARIPRASAD S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
7f. S M MADU S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
7g. S M VASU S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
7(a) to 7(g) ARE R/A. NO.826, CHENNAKESHAVA NAGAR RIGHT SIDE, CENTRAL JAIL ROAD HOSUR MAIN ROAD, SINGASANDRA POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 560 008
8.SMT NANJAMMA W/O VEERABHADRAPPA MAJOR, R/A BANDE NALLASANDRA VILLAGE JIGANI VILLAGE & POST ANEKAL TALUK
9.SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O NANJAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs
9a. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAMMA MAJOR, R/A NO.98/17, IST MAIN 3RD CROSS, J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, SRINIDHI LAYOUT KONANAKUNTE, BANGALORE-560082
4
9b.SMT JAYAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAMMA MAJOR
9c.NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAMMA MAJOR
9(b) and 9(c) ARE R/A INDALAVADI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK 562 106
10. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O MUNINARAYANA MAJOR, CHEKKEDINNE VENKATESHPURA, TANNERY ROAD BANGALORE
11. SMT SUSHEELAMMA W/O. NAGARAJA MAJOR, R/A INNAKKI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK 562 106
12. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O VENKATAPPA MAJOR, R/A MALLUR COLONY SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK
13. SMT MAHADEVAMMA W/O RAMAIAH MAJOR, R/A TANNERY ROAD, CHEKKEDINNE VENKATESHPURA BANGALORE
14. GOPALA S/O RAMAIAH MAJOR, R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE
5
BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 560 068
15. SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O MITTALAPPA MAJOR, R/A CHEKKEDINNE, VENKATESHPURA TANNERY ROAD, BANGALORE
16. SAMPANGAPPA S/O LATE GAREMUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs
16a. SMT CHIKKAMMA D/O LATE SAMPANGAPPA W/O LATE CHIKKAMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A BANDENAHALLSANDRA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
17. PILLAPPA S/O LATE GAREMUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
17a. SMT MUNITHAYAMMA W/O LATE M PILLAPPA MAJOR, R/A CHENNAKESHAVA NAGAR RIGHT SIDE CENTRAL JAIL ROAD HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
17b. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE M PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
17c.SHAMANNA S/O LATE M PILLAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs
6
17c (i) LAKKAPATHY S/O LATE SHAMANNA @ MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
17c. (ii) SMT SAROJA D/O LATE SHAMANNA @ MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
17c. (iii) SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SHAMANNA @ MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
17c. (i) (ii) & (iii) ARE R/A NO.75, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
17c. (iv) BHADRAPPA S/O LATE M PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A CHENNAKESHAVA NAGAR RIGHT SIDE CENTRAL JAIL ROAD HOSUR MAIN ROAD BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 560 068
17c. (v) SMT JAYAMMA D/O LATE M PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 560 068
17c. (vi) SMT DEVEERAMMA D/O LATE M PILLAPPA MAJOR, R/A KITHAKANAHALLI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK 562 106
7
18. CHIKKARAMAIAH S/O LATE GAREMUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs
18a. SMT KEMPAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/A NO.794, CHEENKESHAVA NAGAR RIGHT SIDE CENTRAL JAIL ROAD SINGASANDRA POST BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
18b. CHIKKANARAYANA S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 18c. SMT SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
18d. SRINIVAS S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
No.18(b) to (d) ARE R/A NO.59/1, SINGASANDRA MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD, OPPOSITE HOLY CROSS HOSUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560068
18e. SMT RATHNAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A NO.794, CHEENKESHAVA NAGAR RIGHT SIDE CENTRAL JAIL ROAD SINGASANDRA POST, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
18f. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH
8
AGED ABOUT 48 EYARS R/A NO.38, CHANDAPURA VILLAGE AND POST ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK
18g. ASHWATHA S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A NO.63/A, SINGASANDRA POST BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
18h. MUNISWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A NO.63/A, SINGASANDRA POST BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
18i. PRAKASH S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A NO.59/1, SINGASANDRA MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD OPPOSITE HOLY CROSS HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560068
18j. RAJAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH W/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A NO.794, CHEENKESHAVA NAGAR RIGHT SIDE CENTRAL JAIL ROAD SINGASANDRA POST BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
18k. MANJUNATH S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A NO.794, CHEENKESHAVA NAGAR
9
RIGHT SIDE CENTRAL JAIL ROAD SINGASANDRA POST BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
19. H A L HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED BANGALORE 560 008 BY ITS SECRETARY
20.RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O PILLA REDDY MAJOR, R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
21.SMT SAKAMMA W/O LATE NAGAPPA MAJOR, R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE & POST BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
22.MAHADEVA S/O LATE NAGAPPA MAJOR, R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE & POST BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
23.SMT JAYAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs
23a. SMT MANJAMMA D/O LATE SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
23b. RAMESH S/O LATE SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
10
23c. SMT RAMAKKA D/O LATE SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
23d. SMT RADHA D/O LATE SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
23e. NAVEEN S/O LATE SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
No.23(a) to (e) ARE R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE & POST BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
24. MUNIRAMU N S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
25.KRISHNAPPA S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
26.R PERUMAL CHETTIAR S/O P RAGHURAMA CHETTIAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A NO.23-A, KARANGALPATTI EXTENSION PANDURANGA VITTAL STREET NO.3, GUNGAL SALEM-6, TAMILNADU
27. M SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
11
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A NO.70, SHREYA NILAYA OLD MADIVALA I STAGE B T M LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560068
28. Y PILLARAJU S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO.20, V P ROAD, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE I STAGE, B T M, BANGALORE-560068
29.THE SUB REGISTRAR BOMMANAHALLI B D A COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT.SAVITHRAMMA – HCGP FOR R29 NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS UNNECESSARY)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.24.9.2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.2223 OF 1990 ON I.A.NO.XXI AT ANNEX-J AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW I.A.NO.XXI FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.2223 OF 1990 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE AT ANNEX-G.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the
order dated 24.9.2013 passed on I.A.21 in
O.S.NO.2223/1990.
12
2. The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the said suit, has filed application in I.A.No.21 seeking that the court below direct the SHO, Electronic City Police
Station, Electronic City, Bangalore, to implement/enforce the considered order of temporary injunction dated 4.2.1994. The court below while considering the said application by a detailed order has rejected the application. The plaintiff claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the court below would contend that the court below without appreciating the fact that the nature of the property needs to be retained till the disposal of the suit and in that view an injunction granted by the court below is to be implemented, ought to have considered the application and directed the jurisdictional police to implement its order. In a circumstance where such injunction was operative, court below during the pendency of the suit
13
ought to have taken steps for granting protection as sought for in the application.
4. Though such a contention has been putforth and also the legal position is well established, that in appropriate cases the court below would be entitled to direct grant of police protection for implementation of its order, the question for consideration herein is as to whether in the instant facts of the case, the court below was justified?
5. Firstly it is to be noticed that the order of injunction granted herein is dated 4.2.1994 on I.A.7 a stage when the predecessor in title viz. the father of the petitioner was the plaintiff in the said suit. The said order no doubt came to be affirmed by this Court in
MFA No.1327/1994 on 31.1.1995. In that light the court below while examining the prayer made in the instant application has also taken note of certain development that had taken place subsequent thereto.
In that regard the memo dated 27.3.1995 had been
14
taken into consideration where the plaintiff himself had made certain concessions to the defendants with regard to the certain constructions being permitted on the said property. In fact the memo has been extracted.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no such memo has been filed in the suit. Even if such memo has been filed what has been permitted there is only specific construction stated therein and it cannot permit all other constructions is the further contention.
7. What is necessary to be noticed at this juncture is that such contention itself takes away the effect of the prayer as made by the petitioner since the plaintiff at preset cannot put forth such contention.
When a memo was filed as far back as on 27.3.1995 and the nature of construction as permitted therein had already come up, if the petitioner had such objection certainly it would have been raised at a stage when the construction as permitted under the memo was put up.
15
Therefore, the present act of the petitioner cannot be countenanced in a circumstance where there have been certain developments and where the application presently filed seeking implementation of the order of temporary injunction is dated 4.2.1994. Certainly the court below was justified in the present facts and circumstance in refusing its assistance by directing the police in interfering in the matter. Therefore, I see no error committed by the court below.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Needless to mention that if a request is made before the Court below to dispose of the suit itself, the court below shall take note of such request, fix a time frame for itself and dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Sd/- JUDGE rs