BHIMAPPA SATTEPPA SHERALI Vs. YALLAPPA KEMPANNA JADDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dtd. 16/3/2021 passed in O.S.No.1093/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in and by which the Trial Court rejected the application in I.A. No.4 filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

(2.) The above suit in O.S.No.1093/2018 has been filed by the respondent No.1 herein against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner who is the defendant No.1 in the suit filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint (on the premise that the said suit is not maintainable), contended inter alia, that the petitioner herein had entered into agreement of sale with one Dastagir Hasan Madihalli in terms of which, the petitioner herein was put in possession of the suit property. That the petitioner has erected a shed in the suit property. That the said Dastagir Hasan Madihalli had executed deed of sale in favour of one Sri.Kempanna Ningappa Jiddi on 15/2/1999, constraining the petitioner herein to file a suit in O.S.No.167/1999 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Belagavi for specific performance of agreement of sale, which was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a regular appeal in R.A.No.137/2007 before the Fast Track Court-II, Belagavi, which was allowed and suit was decreed in its entirety. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein had preferred regular second appeal in RSA No.100299/2014 before this Court and the said RSA is pending consideration and no interim order of injunction is granted therein.

(3.) Above being the factual position, the respondent No.1 herein claiming to be the son of aforesaid Kempanna Ningappa Jiddi filed the present suit in O.S.No.1093/2018 claiming to be in possession of the suit land based on the aforesaid deed of sale which has been cancelled and that in view of the decree of specific performance having been granted in favour of the petitioner herein, the suit was not maintainable. Hence, sought for rejection of the plaint. Objections to the said applications were filed. The Trial Court taking into consideration all the contentions urged by the parties, rejected the said application passed by impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.