K.M. MUNIRAJU Vs. SAROJA CHANDRASHEKARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed challenging the common order dated 02.07.2015 passed on IA Nos. 2 & 3 in O.S. No. 4449/2015 by the learned VI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Since common facts and questions arise for consideration, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) By the impugned order, the Trial Court has, while permitting the 1st defendant to go on with the construction activities in the suit properties, has made it clear that defendants 1 to 4 would not be entitled to claim any equitable reliefs in their favour in case plaintiff succeeds in the suit in establishing his title over the property. The Trial Court has observed that defendants 1 to 4 were at liberty to alienate the suit property subject to the condition that there shall be a specific recital in the documents that might be entered into between 1st defendant or defendants 2 to 4 with third parties that the said transaction would be subject to the final result of the suit.

(3.) It is necessary to notice here that plaintiff has filed the suit seeking relief of declaration that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and for a declaration that the sale deed dated 25.11.1992 and the exchange deed dated 27.08.2011 were not in respect of the suit schedule property and as such they were not binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also sought for possession of the suit property and for permanent injunction against the defendants from proceeding with the construction apart from mandatory injunction to direct the 1st defendant to pull down the illegal construction on the suit property. Along with the suit, plaintiff has filed two applications IA Nos. 2 & 3. IA No. 2 was filed to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property, whereas IA No. 3 was filed to restrain the defendants from putting up any construction over the suit property.