LAWS(KAR)-2019-6-394

SUDHA RAO Vs. S SRINIVASA REDDY

Decided On June 14, 2019
Sudha Rao Appellant
V/S
S Srinivasa Reddy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the common defendant in three suits in O.S.Nos.2918/2017, 2914/2017 and 2912/2017 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short "the Civil Court"). These three suits are filed by the plaintiffs, who are the respondent No. 1 in the corresponding appeals, for permanent injunction asserting that they are the absolute owners of site Nos.1, 2 and 3, carved out to Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North. The plaintiffs - respondents assert that these sites are developed by "Akashavani Vasathi Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha "- for short, 'Society'. The Doddabettahalli Group Panchayat has approved a layout plan for development of the lands in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North and the surrounding lands of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North. The Society has transferred the respective plots either in favour of the said respondent No.1 or their predecessors-in-title way back in the year 1993-94. The plaintiffs - respondents, after their predecessors-in-title, have continued in possession of the respective sites ever since the date of sale by the Society, and the Khata for these sites are made in the name of the aforesaid respondents.

(2.) The appellants - defendant (including the respondent No.2) were trying to interfere with the plaintiffs - respondent's possession of the aforesaid sites asserting independent title under certain deeds. Therefore, the plaintiffs - respondents were constrained to file the above three separate suits for permanent injunction restraining the appellant - defendants from interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs - respondents filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the CPC") for pendente lite injunction for protection of their asserted possession of the respective plots.

(3.) The Civil Court, initally, granted ad interim ex parte order of status quo restraining both the parties until the written statement was filed. The appellant - defendant No.1 (here referred to as 'the appellant - defendant No. 1') and respondent No.2 (defendant No.2 in each of the suits) contested the suits and the applications. In fact, the appellant - defendant and respondent No.2 filed written statements with request to the Civil Court to consider such written statements as objections to the applications. The Civil Court by the separate orders dated 12.03.1998, which are impugned in the corresponding appeals, allowed the plaintiffs - respondents' applications restraining the appellant - defendant No. 1 (and defendant No. 2) from interfering with the plaintiffs - respondents' possession of their respective sites. Therefore, the appellant defendant No. 1 has filed these appeals impugning the aforesaid orders. The Civil Court has passed the impugned orders on similar grounds.