GHANALINGA GURU KARIBASAVASWAMI Vs. SHANKARAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.154/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Kustagi challenging the order dtd. 7/11/2016 in terms of which an application filed by him for interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property was rejected.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.154/2016 was filed for the following reliefs:

(3.) The plaintiff claimed that he was the Peethadhipati (Pattadaswami) and Charamurthy of Sri. Channabasaveshwar Mutt, Kustagi, which is more revered as "Sri.Gurusthal Mutt" which possessed huge immovable properties at Kustagi. The plaintiff claimed that the earlier Peethadhipati had anointed him as Charamurthy in the year 1954-55 and granted the suit land bearing R.S.No.200/1 along with R.S.No.333/1, 333/2 and 333 of Kustagi to hold, administer and manage them. This was recognized in terms of a decree dtd. 31/3/1959 passed by the subordinate Judge, Raichur in O.S.No.681/1959. The plaintiff claimed that he authorized the defendants to oversee the litigations concerning the suit property and other immovable properties of Gurusthala Mutt property. The defendants were looking after the suit properties on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 was allegedly a staunch disciple of Gurusthala Mutt, who had gained confidence of the plaintiff, who trusted him. Likewise, defendant No.2 was advising the plaintiff in all legal matters concerning the Mutt. The plaintiff claimed that a person named Siddaramaiah Ramalingaiah Hiremath got his name entered in the revenue records concerning the land bearing Survey No.336 measuring 30 acres 30 guntas by deleting the name of the plaintiff in respect of which O.S.No.95/2006 was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Kustagi for declaration of title. The defendant No.2 had filed vakalath on behalf of the plaintiff while defendant No.1 was assisting defendant No.2 in pursuing the suit. The plaintiff alleged that due to various religious and other activities in the Mutt, he could not devote time to prosecute the suit and on the request and advise of the defendants, he executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 to look after the case. The plaintiff claims that accordingly on 24/3/2011 he had been to the Court to execute power of attorney. The defendants obtained his signatures on various papers claiming that they are related to the power of attorney and in good faith, the plaintiff executed the same. The plaintiff alleges that since the defendants insisted that the document had to be compulsorily registered, he went to the Office of the Sub- Registrar and signed a document in the office of the sub- registrar. However, he later came to know that the defendants had managed to obtain a deed of absolute sale from the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties and he claimed that no consideration was paid by the defendants under the sale deed as stated therein. Hence, he filed suit for declaration that the sale deed was obtained fraudulently and for consequent injunction. He filed an application seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit properties. The defendants contested the suit and claimed that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 and that he got the sale deed prepared and signed it after receiving sale consideration and executed the deed of sale before the Sub- Registrar. They contended that the plaintiff had clearly admitted the lawful execution of the sale deed. They also denied that the plaintiff was misled in obtaining the signatures on the document. They also contended that the plaintiff had handed over the possession of the suit land in favour of the defendants. They also contended that they applied for conversion of the suit land for non-agricultural purpose and the Deputy Commissioner had granted conversion of the land for non-agricultural residential use. The defendants claimed that the sale of the suit property was lawful and a layout plan was prepared, which was approved by the Town Planning Authorities. They, therefore, claimed that granting of an order of injunction would cause irreparable loss and injury to the defendants. They also opposed the application for interim injunction restraining them from alienating the suit properties. The Trial Court after considering the contentions as well as the documents placed on record rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff was yet to prove the fraud allegedly played upon him and that since the land in question is already converted for non-agricultural purpose, any injunction would cause loss to the defendants.