Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 351
High Court of Karnataka
L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J.
C. Kishanlal Kothari & Others – Petitioner
Versus
Vinod Sohanraj Sankla & Others – Respondent
Writ Petitions No. 38077 of 2014 & 38460 of 2014 c/w 47128 of 2014 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 16-04-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Tarakram, Sr. Counsel for H.R. Ananthakrishna Murthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K.S. Lokesh Kumar, Advocate, R3-R29 Dispensed With.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to direct the deposit of a substantial amount with interest to ensure availability when the rights are settled at the final disposal of the suit.
Headnote:
Joint Development Agreement - Property Dispute - Section 151 CPC, Article 227 of the Constitution - 1934 to 1937 Sale Deeds, Record of Rights - MOUs - Deposit of Amount with Interest
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a property dispute where the plaintiffs sought relief for partition and separate possession, mesne profits, and permanent injunction. The defendant No.19 claimed exclusive ownership of the properties, while the plaintiffs claimed them as Hindu undivided family properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit schedule properties were ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and other sharers, and the defendant No.19 had no prima facie right to retain the substantial amount received through fraudulent MOUs. The court directed the defendant to deposit Rs.11 crores to the suit account with interest, and reserved the liberty for the plaintiffs to agitate the payment of interest at the time of the final hearing of the suit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant No.19 had the right to retain the substantial amount received through fraudulent MOUs on the suit schedule properties, and whether the court had the authority to direct the deposit of the amount with interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is a supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly, and the impugned order did not call for interference. It also found that the defendant had no prima facie right to retain the amount and directed the deposit to ensure availability when the rights are settled at the final disposal of the suit.
Final Decision: The writ petitions filed by the defendant were rejected, and the plaintiffs' petition was disposed of with the direction for the defendant to deposit the amount to the suit account with interest.
1. The parties in these writ petitions would be referred to as per their ranking in the court below for the sake of convenience.
2. Writ Petition Nos.38077/2014 & 38460/2014 are filed by the defendant No.19 in O S No.8230/2007 on the file of the VII Addl. City Civil Judge, (CCHNo.19), at Bangalore being aggrieved of the order dated 6.02.2014 passed on I A Nos.13 & 26. W P No.47128/2014 is filed by the plaintiffs No.11 to 13 and 15 to18 in the above suit seeking deposit of the amount with interest.
3. The trial court by the impugned order directed the 19th defendant to deposit Rs.11 crores to the credit of O S No.8230/2007. So far as payment of interest is concerned, it is observed by the court below that the plaintiffs No.11 to 13 and 15 to 18 are at liberty to agitate the same at the time of hearing on main suit on proper enquiry.
4. The facts of the case to be stated in brief are as follows:
The plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or dealing with the same and further restraining them from constructing and changing nature of the suit lands etc., on the ground that the suit schedule properties are the Hindu undivided family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 15 and defendants have no exclusive right over the suit schedule properties.
5. The defendant No.19 filed written statement contending inter alia that the suit schedule properties are the properties belonging exclusively to that defendant. The properties are acquired prior and after registration of the society. The said defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of those lands. The plaintiffs have no right whatsoever and they are strangers in respect of the suit lands.
6. I A No.13 was filed by plaintiffs No.11 to 18 on 28.3.2011 under Section 151 CPC praying to direct the 16th defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.11 crores to the credit of O S No.8230/2007 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, Bangalore. I.A. No.26 was filed by the plaintiffs No.11 to 13 and 15 to18 on 26.8.2013 under Section 151 CPC seeking to direct the 19th defendant to deposit the aforesaid amount with interest to the credit of O S No.8230/2007. IA No.26 came to be filed after the order passed by this Court in W P No.10097-10101/2012 (GM-CPC) dated 23.07.2013 remanding the matter in I A No.XIII with a direction to afford an opportunity to file objections by defendants 17 and 19 and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the meantime, defendant No.19 came to be impleaded by the order of the trial court dated 29.1.2013 on I A No.18 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the plaintiffs 11 to 18. This Court by the order dated 10.6.2013 in W P No.12120/2013 (GM-CPC) directed to implead the 19th defendant as Secretary of Bangalore Gorakshana Society. Therefore, I A Nos.13 & 26 are filed by the plaintiffs as aforesaid for the relief of direction to the defendant No.19 to deposit the amount with interest.
7. It is stated in the affidavits filed in support of the applications that the defendant No.19 has no exclusive rights or authority to enter into joint development agreement with 17th defendant in respect of the existing rights of plaintiffs. By collusion and connivance with 17th defendant, the defendant has resorted to only fraudulent, deceitful acts and cheated the plaintiffs. The 19th defendant in collusion with the first defendant created a joint developmental agreement with the 17th defendant and entrusted the joint family lands, which are the subject matter of the suit behind the back of the plaintiffs. The 19th defendant is not having any semblance of right in respect of lands in question but created two Memorandum of Understanding in August, 2006 and received an amount of Rs.7,50,00,000/- as interest free security deposit, out of which Rs.2,50,00,000/- is not refundable and Rs.3,50,00,000/- as interest free security deposit out of which Rs.1,1
