RICHFIELD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RUKMANIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in Misc. Appeal Nos. 6 and 7 of 2010; dismissing the appeals filed by the Petitioner herein and affirming the order passed by the Trial Court granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant-Petitioner herein from alienating the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) The suit is filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property bearing Survey No. 86/2, measuring 1 acre 11 guntas, situated at Avadadenhalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal, Bangalore District. Both the Courts below have found that the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of an order of temporary injunction and the balance of convenience was in their favour. The main reason for the Courts below to come to this conclusion is that the suit being one for partition there is serious question to be tried and until the shares of the parties are determined, the suit property is to be maintained in status quo as any alienation or encumbrance will create complications.

(3.) It is seen from the materials on record including the impugned orders that the entire land is converted and sites are formed in the approved layout. The Petitioner herein is a purchaser of the property and has invested huge amount for development and formation of sites. The Petitioner has filed an undertaking by way of an affidavit dated 11-3-2010 enclosing a copy of the approved layout plan stating that he will set apart an extent of 5,425 sq. feet of area comprising in Site Nos. 1, 2, 21 and 22 as shown in the sanctioned plan enclosed to the affidavit, located in a contiguous area, towards the alleged 1/6th share of the Plaintiffs-Respondents herein. In fact, it is stated in the affidavit that after giving margin to the land utilized for formation of roads and other amenities, the 1/6th share in the developed area only comes to around 4,950/- sq. feet. However, to put at rest the controversy that his arisen out of the interim orders now passed by the Courts below he is willing to set apart an extent of 5,425 sq. feet in the 4 sites mentioned above. The Plaintiffs/Respondents are not satisfied with this undertaking.