Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22120 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
GOWRAMMA, W/O. B.J. SREEPADARAO, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KEREKOPPA VILLAGE, ULAVI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH K.B., S/O. BASAVANYAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KANLE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by BS TALGUPPA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, RAVIKUMAR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 430.
Location:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. B.J. SATEESH, S/O. B.J. SHREEPADARAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KEREKOPPA VILLAGE, ULAVI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH A.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. NUNEEZ DHARWADKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:16.02.2021 IN O.S.NO.222/2015 BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SORABA, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND QUASHING THE ORDER DATED:12.08.2022 BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SORABA IN M.A.NO.6/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-
G AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Plaintiff in O.S.No.222/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.02.2021 passed therein by which an application filed by him under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was rejected. He has also challenged the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 12.08.2022 in M.A.No.6/2021.
2. The facts required for consideration of this writ petition are that the suit in O.S.No.222/2015 was filed for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of an agricultural land based on a Will dated 16.08.1990 purportedly executed in favour of the plaintiff by Smt.Devakamma W/o.Sri Jana Manjappa. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds. The plaintiff filed an application for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from surveying the property for bifurcating it so as to sell it to third parties. This application was rejected by the Trial Court in terms of an order dated 16.02.2021. An Appeal was preferred therefrom in M.A.No.6/2021, which too was dismissed in terms of the order dated 12.08.2022. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit is filed for declaration of title based on the Will dated 16.08.1990 executed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants are trying to cut and remove the standing trees as well as are trying to alienate the suit property by getting the land surveyed and bifurcate.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents however, contends that the trees still exist on the suit property and are neither cut nor removed as alleged by the plaintiff.
She also contended that the defendants have no intention to alienate the suit property, for the present.
5. In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for the respondents nothing further survives in this writ petition.
6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off, directing the respondents not to cut or remove any standing tree and not to alienate the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit before the Trial Court.
7. Since it is stated that the plaintiff is yet to adduce evidence, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit at the earliest, which at any rate, shall not be later than one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
