IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
MFA NO.5846 OF 2021 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
Smt Sangeetha
W/o P.R. Sathyaranayana
Aged about 45 years
Residing at No.40, Flat No.201
Comfort Sannidhi, Patalamma Temple Street
Basavangudi, Bangalore-56004.
…Appellant
(By Sri M.S. Bhagwat, Sr. Counsel for
Sri Satish K, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri P.R. Sainath
S/o Late P.M. Ramamurthy
Aged about 58 years
Residing at No.652/1
Pandurangaswamy Temple Street
Bangarpet Town-563 114.
2. Sri P.R. Sathyanarayna
S/o Late P.M Ramamurhy
Aged about 51 years
3. Smt. Vinodha Lakshmi
D/o Late P.M. Ramamurthy
Aged about 67 years
Both respondent Nos.2 and 3
are residing at NO.40, Flat NO.201
Confort Sannidhi,
:: 2 ::
Patalamma Temple Street
Basavangudi, Bangalore-560004.
4. Smt T.P. Saroja
D/o Late P.M. Ramamurthy
W/o T.K Prasad
Aged about 65 years
Now residing at No.T34 023
New Haven Riva, Dasanapura Village
Near Golden Palms Hotel and Spa
Dasanapura Hobli, Dasanapura
Bangalore Rural-562123.
5. Smt. V Jayasree
D/o Late P. M Ramamurthy
W/o P Venkateshana
Aged about 55 years
Now R/at No.1, S.V. Road
Dharamapuri -636701.
…Respondents
(By Sri D. Prabhakar, Advocate for R1,
Notice to R2 to 5 is dispensed Vide order
dated 01.12.2021)
This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) R/W
Section
151
of
CPC,
against
the
dated
19.08.2021 passed on I.A No.16 in O.S No.43/2015 on
the filed of the Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, KGF,
Kolar, rejecting the I.A No.16 filed under order 39
Rule 4 R/w Section 151 of CPC.
This MFA coming on for dictating the judgment
this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the sixth defendant in
O.S.No.43/2015 pending on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, KGF.
:: 3 ::
2.
In the suit there is an order of temporary
injunction
restraining
defendants
from
alienating the suit properties. The sixth defendant
made an application, as per IA No.16, under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC seeking relaxation of the
order to enable her to dispose of items 4, 6, 10
and 32 as she wanted money for performing the
marriage of her daughter. According to her, items
4, 6, 10 and 32 are her self acquired properties.
3.
The Trial Court passed the impugned
order on IA No.16 dismissing the said application
on 19.08.2021, giving reason that the second
defendant had made a similar application as per IA
No.12
and
it
was
rejected
on
07.04.2018.
Therefore to entertain the application, IA No.16,
there are no changed circumstances.
4.
It is
submitted by Sri M.S.Bhagwat,
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that items
4, 6, 10 and 32 of the suit are standing in the
:: 4 ::
name of the sixth defendant/who is appellant
herein. This is not disputed by the plaintiff. IA
No.12 was made by the second defendant and
dismissal of that application would not come in the
way of relaxing the interim order of injunction.
5.
Sri M.S.Bhagwat further submitted that,
the appellant has clearly stated that she wants
money to perform the marriage of her daughter
and
moreover
in
writ
petition,
W.P.No.30387/2018, this Court observed that the
petitioner therein could make an application under
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act seeking
leave of the Court for the purpose of alienating the
properties. The appellant is the wife of the second
defendant, who was the petitioner in the writ
petition. The same liberty is also available to the
wife. The appellant has also made out a ground
for relaxing the order of temporary injunction
operating against her. In this view, the trial Court
:: 5 ::
would have taken a decision to relax the order of
temporary injunction.
6.
Sri
D.Prabhakar,
counsel
for
first
respondent though admits that items 4, 6, 10 and
32 of the suit properties stand in the name of the
appellant, he further submitted that if alienation is
permitted,
it
will
result
in
multiplicity
proceedings
and
therefore
Trial
Court
is
justified in rejecting IA No.16.
7.
This is a suit for partition. The plaintiff
has included properties which are situated in many
places. But, it is not in dispute that items 4, 6, 10
and 32 stand in the name of the appellant.
Keeping in mind the scope of the partition suit, the
trial Court should have considered the appellant’s
application. In a partition suit, if alienation is
permitted, the alienees could be impleaded in
accordance with Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC,
because of devolution of interest and that the
:: 6 ::
purchaser or alienee’s interest can be worked out
in the final decree proceedings.
8.
The
appellant
wants
money
for
purpose of performing marriage of her daughter.
The plaintiff has claimed 1/6th share in all the
properties. But the Court has to decide as to how
much share he is entitled to or whether at all he is
entitled to share in all the items of the properties.
The appellant is the wife of second defendant, and
for this reason, in case items 4, 6, 10 and 32 are
held to be amenable for partition, the share that
can be allotted to second defendant can be worked
out in favour of the alienees of the appellant,
subject to valuation of the properties. This being
the position, the Trial Court could have permitted
the appellant
to sell or create any kind of
encumbrance in respect of items 4, 6, 10 and 32.
It has simply given the reason that be