C.RAMESH Vs. C.BHAVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc.First Appeal, is instituted by the appellant Dr.C.Ramesh, challenging the legality and correctness of the common order dtd. 16/4/2024 passed by the 8th Addl.CCH, Bengaluru in OS No.2845/2018. The said order arose out of the interlocutory applications filed by the parties during the pendency of the partition suit. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court allowed I.A. Nos.1 and 2 filed by respondent no.1, Smt.C.Bhavani alias Hamsa under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and consequently, granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants therein from alienating suit schedule 'A' properties and from receiving compensation or sites allotted by the BDA in relation to the acquired Schedule 'B' properties. In the same breadth, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.IV filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC which sought to vacate the interim order of status quo previously passed.

(2.) The appellant has assailed the impugned order on various legal and factual grounds. It is contended that, the suit schedule property were bequeathed to him and his mother respondent no.2 Smt. Rajamma, through a registered Will dtd. 25/6/1977 executed by their maternal grand father by name Sri J.S.Nannjudappa. According to the appellant, the Will confers exclusive rights over the suit schedule property upon himself and his mother to the exclusion of all other legal heirs including the plaintiff. The appellant further alleges that, the respondent no.1 being the daughter of late Chinnappa and appellant sister is not entitled to seek partition or any interim injunctive reliefs particularly when the title to the properties in question is said to have devolved solely under the testamentary document. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that, even in the absence of Will, as the property is devolved from maternal side, the mother of the plaintiff being the class-I heir, is entitled for property and not the plaintiff. The counsel for the appellant further vehemently argued that the trial Court erred in making an observation that, the Will was not acted upon when in fact revenue records have been mutated in his and his mother's names based on the orders passed by this Court in WP No.16866/2013, thereby, acknowledging the effect of the Will.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that, the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed critical material facts such as the existence of the Will and the legal status of the suit schedule properties which are no longer classified as agricultural lands especially in view of their acquisition by the BDA. He would further contend that, such a suppression of facts disentitles the plaintiff from securing discretionary reliefs in the form of injunctions. He would further contend that, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the binding effect of the mutation entries, which reflect the testamentary devolution of title and were not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.