KANAKAMMA Vs. GURUMURTHY REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed against the common orders passed on I.A.Nos.1 to 3. I.A.No.1 is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC wherein sought an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.7 and 9 and their men from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and I.A.No.2 is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.7 and 9 and their men from alienating, creating charge or encumbering the suit schedule property and I.A.No.3 is filed by defendant No.9 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Sec. 151 of CPC praying the Court to vacate the exparte order of temporary injunction which was granted against defendant Nos.7 and 9. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 are rejected and I.A.No.3 is allowed in vacating the interim order granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The very contention of plaintiffs counsel in all the appeals that the Trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not made out the prima facie case and the balance of convenience is not lies in favour of the plaintiffs and the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. The counsel would vehemently contends that the suit schedule property is the part and parcel of Sy.No.47 and the suit was filed to an extent of 6 acres of land and 1 acre 28 guntas of karab land totally measuring 7 acres 28 guntas of land out of 19 acres 35 guntas situated at Yelenahalli village, Begur hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. The counsel further contends that originally the property belongs to one Chikka Nagireddy and he had two wives by name Venkatalakshmamma and Thimmakka. Through first wife, Chikka Nagireddy got two sons and through second wife, he got four sons and he partitioned the property among them. In the partition, the first wife and his legal heirs got 13 acres 38 guntas and second wife and his legal heirs got 2 acres 30 guntas in terms of the partition dtd. 23/6/1956. The children belongs to the first wife are Gurappa Reddy and Ramaiah and they got divided the property and in the partition, an extent of 6 acres 20 guntas was allotted to the share of Gurappa Reddy and 6 acres of land was allotted to the share of Ramaiah. It is further contended that 1 acre 18 guntas was left for the exclusive usage of Gurumurthy Reddy. Gurappa Reddy sold his extent of 6 acres 20 guntas in favour of Patel Govindappa vide sale deed dtd. 11/10/1956. The counsel would vehemently contend that defendants relying upon the sale deed dtd. 26/11/1956 allegedly executed by Ramaiah who is the son of first wife of Chikka Nagireddy but no entries are found in the revenue documents and the names of the defendant also not got mutated based on the said sale deed but defendants are claiming their rights based on the said sale deed. The counsel would vehemently contend that the title is only to the extent of 2 acres 30 guntas in terms of the partition deed dtd. 23/6/1956 in favour of Thimakka and her children. Hence, they don't have title to sell the property to the extent of 8 acres 30 guntas. But they got divided the property vide partition deed dtd. 6/1/1969 and also contended that on 21/2/1969, the sale deed was executed in favour of M B Rodericks i.e., defendant No.4 to the extent of 11 acres 22 gunas but there was no title to such extent and the said sale deed also does not disclose anything about the same since they are not parties to the said sale deed thus, the question of limitation does not arise. The relief is sought is also not to alienate the suit schedule property and not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiffs and Trial Court committed an error in dismissing I.A.Nos.1 and 2. Hence, it requires interference.

(3.) Per contra, the counsel for the respondents filed the statement of objections along with the documents and events of documents contending that the suit was filed after 65 years of the sale, that is, the sale deed was executed on 26/11/1956 by Ramaiah himself in favour of second wife of Chikka Nagireddy and her children. The counsel also vehemently contends that the plaintiffs are claiming that they are legal representatives of said Ramaiah but, no document is produced before the Court to substantiate the same. The counsel also would submits that the partition was effected in the year 1956 itself i.e., on 23/6/1956 and in terms of the said partition, an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas was allotted in favour of Thimakka and her four sons and there was partition between Gurappa Reddy and Ramaiah i.e., children of first wife of Chikka Nagireddy. There is no dispute to the said fact that there was a partition on 2/8/1956 between Gurappa Reddy, Ramaiah and Gurumurthy Reddy. Consequent upon the said partition only, sale deed was executed on 26/11/1956 to an extent of 6 acres which was allotted in favour of Ramaiah. The very Ramaiah had sold the property and the plaintiffs have suppressed the said sale and filed the suit. The counsel also contended that the properties were also converted and even though the property was converted, a false suit was filed stating that still the suit schedule property is an agricultural land. The counsel also vehemently contends that when the plaintiffs have approached the Court without clean hands, an interim order cannot be granted. The Trial Court also while answering point No.1 with regard to the prima facie case taken note of the fact that the sale deed was executed in the year 1956 by Ramaiah to the extent of 6 acres. The Trial Court also taken note that several transactions were taken place between the purchasers who have sold the same on different dates and sale deeds clearly disclose that already several transactions were taken place subsequently and also taken note of Encumbrance Certificate from the year 1953 to 1972 and comes to the conclusion that the sale deed has been clearly mentioned in the said document. The partition deed, sale deed, RTC, mutation extracts, conversion order, tax paid receipts, electricity bills, photographs along with CD and other documents clearly substantiate the fact that the suit schedule property is under the possession of defendant No.9 and hence rejected I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and rightly allowed I.A.No.3 vacating the interim order which was granted earlier. Hence, there are no merit in these appeals.