MANDALI RANGANNA Vs. M RAMACHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are preferred by the plaintiffs in the Trial Court in O.S. No. 7039 of 2003 and challenge is to the order passed on I.A. No. 20. M.F.A. No. 3134 of 2010 is by the plaintiffs 1, 10 and 11 and M.F.A. No. 3351 of 2010 is by the plaintiffs 2 to 7 and 9. Said I.A. No. 20 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking an order of temporary injunction against 7th defendant from preventing said defendant and his agents etc., from excavating or putting up any construction pursuant to lease deed dated 12-12-2005 executed by defendants 1 to 6 in respect of the suit schedule property. The schedule to said I.A. No. 20 has been mentioned as property bearing No. 33/2 (forming portion of old Municipal No. 3, subsequent No. 33), Ulsoor road, Ward No. 81, Bangalore, measuring approximately 33,708 sq. ft., all that property forming portion of Municipal No. 33 and measuring 6475 sq. ft. Said I.A. was dismissed by the Trial Court with certain conditions imposed on 7th defendant. It is this order i.e., called in question in these appeals.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the plaintiffs' case before the Trial Court in their suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs share in suit schedule property is that properties originally belonged to one Mandi Mandalappa and he had three sons namely Chikkarangaiah, Muniswamappa and Thimmaiah. The plaintiffs case is that after the death of Mandi Mandalappa, there was a partial partition, but suit properties remained joint and were being managed first by Muniswamappa and thereafterwards by his son Ramachandra, first defendant in the present suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for a share in the suit properties though in possession of first defendant.

(3.) The case of the defendants on the other hand is that there was a partition of all the properties in the year 1924. The suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of Thimmaiah and after death of Thimmaiah, his widow Puttathayamma adopted first defendant herein i.e., Ramachandra and as such first defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property after the death Puttathayamma. In order to substantiate the said stand taken, the defendants relied on the adoption deed dated 13-12-1937 but registered on 20-1-1938. They also relied on Memorandum of Partition dated 23-5-1948 between children of Chikkarangaiah and registered release deed dated 15-2-1954 evidencing partition between Muniswamappa and his sons and another document namely registered partition deed between the children of Muniswamappa dated 22-2-1954 was also referred to by the defendants and in addition, the defendants also placed reliance on several transactions by way of lease deeds from 1957 to 1962. It is on these averments in the written statements the defendants sought for dismissal of the plaintiffs suit.