Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25055 (KAR)

SRI.N. BHADRA REDDY v. SRI.KRISHNA REDDY

MFA/3404/2024 · 2025-01-21

K Natarajan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3404 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. N. BHADRA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.168, HENNAGARA MAIN ROAD, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.R.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.165, NEAR MAHADEVAMMA TEMPLE, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 2. SRI. V. NAGESH S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.HIG-65, 4TH CROSS, SURYANAGAR, CHANDAPURA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 3. SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY S/O MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 R/AT NO.67, KITHAGANAHALLI, CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT- 560 099. 4. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O LATE BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.67-A, KITHAGANAHALLI, CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 5. SRL. VINAY S/O LATE BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.67-A, KITHAGANAHALLI, CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 6. SMT. SHRUTHI B. W/O PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, BURAGUNTE, BILLAPURA PANCHAYATHI, SARJAPURA-HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 125. 7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, HEELALIGE, CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 8. SRI. V. NANJA REDDY, S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, R/AT NO.142, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VILLAGE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 9. SRI. V. RAMESHA S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO. 142, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 10. SMT. RAMAKKA W/O LATE VENKATA REDDY @ APPAYYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.68-A, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 11. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY @ KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 12. SMT. SHOBHA. K. W/O ANAND, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 13. AKANTH. K S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 14. SMT. ANITHA. K. W/O VENKATESH, D/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.11 TO 14 ALL ARE R/AT NO.25, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 15. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.154, KITHAGANAHALLI- CHANDAPURA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 16. SRI. VISHWANATH S/O RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT SARAKAPALLI VILLAGE & POST, MADAGONDAPALLI VIA, DEKANIKOTE TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 635 114. 17. SMT. SHILPA W/O BABU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT RACHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BESTHAMANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106. 18. SRL. B.N. GOPALA REDDY S/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT VILLAGE NO.34, BRICK BUILDER SHELTER, BENDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NERALUR POST, ATTIBELE- VIA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, 562 107. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 19. SRL. B.N. GOPALA REDDY S/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT VILLAGE NO.34, BRICK BUILDER SHELTER, BENDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NERALUR POST, ATTIBELE- VIA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT., 562 107. 20. SMT. MADHU W/O KISHORE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT M.I.G. 791, 2ND CROSS, 1ST PHASE, SURYA CITY, CHANDAPURA POST, ATTIBELE - HOBLI, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA - VIA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 21. SRI. MADAN S/O B.N. GOPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT VILLAGE NO.34, BRICK BUILDER SHELTER, BENDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NERALUR POST, ATTIBELE- VIA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 107. 22. SRI. GOPAL REDDY, S/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.151A, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST & VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 23. SRL. SHIVAPPA, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 R/AT NO.38, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VIA, ATTIBELE HOBIL, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 24. SRI. LOKESH S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 25. SRI. AMRUTH, S/O LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 26. SRI. MANOHAR S/O LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.151L, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 27. SMT. V. VANAJA W/O CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.365, CHANDRA REDDY BUILDING, B.S. CARMEL SCHOOL ROAD, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 28. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE LAKSHMAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.520, FARM HOUSE, KITHAGANAHALLI, NEAR LENIN FACTORY, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLL, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 29. SRI. GIRIDHAR L. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 S/O LATE LAKSHMAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.173/520, FARM HOUSE, NEAR LENIN FACTORY, KITHAGANAHALLI, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 30. SRI. BALAJI. L S/O LATE LAKSHMAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.520, FARM HOUSE, NEAR LENIN FACTORY, KITHAGANAHALLI, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 31. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA W/O LATE RAMASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.10A, T.V.S. SHOWROOM OWNER, CHANDAPURA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 099. 32. SMT. B.R. JAYANTHI KUMARI W/O LATE K.R. SHASHI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.008, COLUD-9 VILLAS, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, ATTIBELE HOBLL, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 33. SRI. K. SAMVED N REDDY S/O LATE K.R. SHASHI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO.008, COLUD-9 VILLAS, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 34. CHIRANTHANA D/O LATE K.R. SHASHI, AGED ABOUT 18, 1.5 YEARS, R/AT NO.008, COLUD-9 VILLAS, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 35. SRI. K. R. MURALIMOHAN S/O LATE RAMASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.10A, T.V.S. SHOWROOM OWNER, CHANDAPURA, ATTIBELE HOBLL, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 099. 36. SMT. K.R. ROOPA, W/O SRIDHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.91, 1ST CROSS, LALJINAGAR, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 030. 37. SRI. K.R.NANDA KUMAR S/O LATE RAMASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 099. 38. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 39. SMT. N.KOMALA D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, W/O JAYARAM REDDY, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT TERACON LAYOUT, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 40. SMT. N.USHA W/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY, D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.289, GOWRAMMA LAYOUT, CHANDAPURA CHATRAKANE, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 41. SRI. N.MANJUNATH REDDY, S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.166, KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA POST AND VIA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2; NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENT DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED:13/01/2025) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.8 IN O.S.NO.511/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.8 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 of CPC by the appellant/defendant No.35 for setting aside the order in I.A.No.8 passed by the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal in O.S.No.511/2020 dated 18.04.2024. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 who is the caveator for respondent No.2. Issuing notice to other respondents, is dispensed with 3. The appellant was defendant No.35 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court and ranks of the parties are retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that they have filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to declare the suit schedule property in Sy.No.38/2 measuring 38 guntas which is an ancestral family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 34 and there is no partition between family. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 The defendant No.19, behind the back of the plaintiff executed gift deed in favour of defendant Nos.20 and 21 on 16.9.2017. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the gift deed and declare the property of the joint family property of plaintiff and defendants. 7. During the pendency of the suit, it came to their knowledge that defendant Nos.20 and 21 said to have sold the property to present appellant/defendant No.35 by sale deed dated 05.02.2021. Hence, he filed application for defendant No.35 not to alienate the schedule property until disposal of the suit. The appellant also appeared and filed the objection to the interlocutory application. In fact, initially Trial Court had granted ad interim temporary injunction and later the same was confirmed and directed the appellant/defendant No.35 not to alienate or create any 3rd party right over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.35 appeared before this court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser from the defendant Nos.20 and 21 and that they are the absolute owner of the property by way of gift deed executed by defendant No.19 and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 subsequently agreement was entered into between defendant Nos.20 and 21, along with this appellant on 20.3.2020 and agreed to execute sale deed in favour of the defendant No.35, but they have not executed the same. Hence, defendant No.35 filed suit in O.S.No.2/2021 for specific performance and after issuance of notice, defendant Nos.20 to 21 appeared. Accordingly, they compromised the case and as per the compromise, defendant Nos.20 and 21 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.35 on 05.02.2021 in compliance of the compromise. As per the same, appellant is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. There is no prima facie case made out by the respondents in order to grant any injunction by the Trial Court. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the order of the Trial Court. 9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 objected the appeal and contended that the property itself is a joint family property and behind the back, the defendant No.19 executed gift deed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the same was under challenge. During the pendency of the appeal, the sale deed was executed by defendant Nos.20 and 21 is lis pendence. Therefore, the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 property required to be protected until disposal of the suit, if the same is alienated by the defendant No.35/appellant it will create multiplicity of litigation. Hence, prayed for dismissal fo the suit. 10. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, on perusal of the same, on hearing the arguments, it reveals one Pete Nagappa was propositors of family members of the plaintiff defendant Nos.1 to 34 who said to be having a son by name Nanjunda Reddy @ Nanjundappa, who was having 6 children and the defendants are the siblings and grand children of the Pete Nagappa. The suit property said to be fallen to the share of defendant No.19, according to the gift deed executed by him in favour of defendant Nos.20 and 21, who said to be sold to the defendant No.35. The plaintiff filed suit to declare the said property, is the joint family property. Ofcourse the suit is filed not for partition and separate possession, but it was only declaration and mandatory injunction, to set aside the gift deed executed by defendant No.19 in favour of defendant Nos.20 and 21. 11. It is seen from the record, the defendant Nos.20 and 21 entered into agreement of sale with the present appellant - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 on 20.03.2020, ofcourse it was prior to filing of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits, it is fake documents or sham documents, created only for purpose of defeating the right of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the suit was filed by the appellant wherein in O.S.No.2/2021, during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.511/2020 filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ofcourse, there was compromise held between defendant Nos.20 and 21 and appellant herein. However, the plaintiffs and other family members were not party in the said suit and suit was compromised between parties. Accordingly, a sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant. Admittedly, though the sale deed was executed as per the compromise, but it is lis pendency sale, through an agreement but it was not concluded prior to the filing of the suit. 12. On perusal of this records, prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff in respect of the schedule property in joint family property and it was contested, but the defendant No.19 has no authority or exclusive right to alienate or gift to his own children, when the suit was pending for consideration to declare the very suit schedule property was subject matter for - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 declaration and cancellation of gift deed. If the suit is decreed, definitely, the defendant Nos. 20 and 21 or 35 will not get any right over the property. Such being the case, there is balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. Though the appellant defendant No.35 was the bonafide purchaser, if the very vendor fails to get any right over the property, definitely the defendant No.35 will not get any property. In case, if the defendant Nos.20 and 21 and 19 gets right over the property, the defendant No.35 will also get right over the property. Such being the case, it is necessary for the Trial Court to protect the property intact till disposal of the suit. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court rightly directed the defendant No.35 to maintain the status quo over the property and not to alienate or create any 3rd party interest till disposal of the suit. Therefore, I am of the view, the Trial Court considering the very facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the impugned order directing the defendant No.35/appellant not to alienate or create 3rd party interest. I am of the view, there is nothing to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and it does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:2481 MFA No. 3404 of 2024 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT:SK