MAHILA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. VENUGOPAL N.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 19/3/2022 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.870/2020 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and C/C. IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH- 5), allowing I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC.

(3.) The appellant is the Mahila Co-operative Bank Limited represented by its Manager and defendant No.3 in the suit. The plaintiff had filed the suit before the Trial Court contending that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property belonging to his grand-father Javaraiah, who acquired the same under registered sale deed and during his life time, he was enjoying the suit schedule property. The said grand-father died leaving behind three children and all of them have executed relinquishment deed dtd. 22/1/2009 in favour of the father of the plaintiff and by virtue of the said relinquishment deed, the name of the defendant No.1 was mutated in BBMP records. It is the claim of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that he has got share in the said property and on seeing the paper publication in 'Kannada Prabha' newspaper dtd. 5/1/2020, wherein a publication was made to take possession of the suit schedule property, he came to know that defendant No.1 had mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 i.e., the appellant-bank for the purpose of availing loan by his friends. It is contended that defendant No.1 without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, mortgaged the suit schedule property to deprive the legitimate right of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of partition.