IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

JMFC AT ANEKAL

Present: Sri. T.Govindaiah, B.Com., LL.B.,

Senior Civil Judge, Anekal

O.S. No.302/2008

Dated this the 12th day of Feb, 2016

Plaintiff/s : Smt. Ratnamma and others

V/s

Defendant/s : Shri. Muniraju and others

ORDERS ON I.A No.10

The applicants/plaintiffs filed present application U/o.39 Rule 1

& 2 of CPC., for seeking temporary injunction restraining the

defendants No.8 to 17 from alienating the suit property during the

pendency of this suit, for costs and other relief.

2. In support of the application, the applicant/plaintiff No.1 has

sworn an affidavit wherein she states that she filed the suit for

seeking the relief of declaration of his ownership and permanent

injunction in respect of suit property. During the pendency of this suit,

the defendants No.3 to 7 have alienated the suit properties in favour

of defendants No.8 to 17. Now, the defendants No.8 to 17 have been

 2 O.S. No.302/2008

impleaded. They have also been trying to alienate the suit property

only with an intention to cause loss to the applicant/plaintiff. If the

defendants No.8 to 17 have alienated the suit property, multiplicity of

proceedings will be arises. The applicants/plaintiffs have made out

prima-facie case and balance of convenience is lies in her favour.

If the application is not allowed, hardship and inconvenience will be

caused to her. On the other hand, no loss or injury to the other side if

the application is allowed. Hence, applicants/plaintiffs prays for

allowing the present application.

3. The defendant No.10 has filed objection to the present

application, wherein he contended that the plaintiffs and their family

members are no way concerned to the suit property. They filed the

present suit on the basis of the imaginary grounds. Since beginning,

the plaintiff and his family members are not in possession of any

portion of the suit property, the suit property originally belongs to

Madduramma who died on 10.04.1994. Thereafter, his brothers and

wife of brothers i.e., defendants No.1 & 2 have succeeded the suit

property. Because the said Madduramma died issue less.

Therefore, the application filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in

the eye of law. The defendants No.1 & 2 being the owners of the suit
 3 O.S. No.302/2008

properties, they have alienated the same in favour of defendants

No.3 to 6 to meet out their family and legal necessity through the sale

deed dated 27.10.1988. Thereafter, the defendants No.3 to 6 being

the owners of the suit properties, they have alienated the same in

favour of defendant No.7 through the sale deed dated 25.01.2006.

Thereafter, the suit properties and other surrounding properties have

been acquired by BDA. Thereafter, Bangalore Development

Authorities formed residential layout and distributed the sites to

different persons. Therefore, the suit properties are not available as

agricultural lands. Already site purchasers have constructed the

building and started to live along with their family members. The BDA

formed the residential layout in the suit properties and other housing

properties bearing Sy. No.8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4, 9/1, 9/2, 9/3, 9/4, 10/1,

10/2P, 147 totally measuring 11 acres 8 guntas. These facts are well

known to the plaintiffs. The present application filed only with an

intention to harass the defendants. Hence, defendant No.10 prays

for reject the present application.

4. Heard arguments on both sides.

5. The following points that would arise for the consideration of

this court are;
 4 O.S. No.302/2008

1. Whether the applicants/plaintiffs have made out

prima-facie case for grant of temporary injunction?
2. Whether the balance of convenience is lies in favour
of the applicants/plaintiffs?
3. Whether the applicants/plaintiffs will be put to
irreparable loss and injury in the event of not granting
the order of temporary injunction?
4. What order?

6. Perused the contention of both the parties and materials

placed before the court.

7. My findings on the above points are as follows;

Point No.1 : In the Negative

Point No.2 : In the Negative

Point No.3 : In the Negative

Point No.4 : As per final order

for the following;
REASONS

8. Points No.1 to 3:- For the sake of convenience and to

avoid the repetition of facts, I would like to discuss these points

together. Further, these points are inter-linked with each other. As

stated above, the applicants/plaintiffs have filed this suit for seeking

the relief of declaration of their ownership and permanent injunction in

 5 O.S. No.302/2008

respect of suit properties. Now, the present application filed for

seeking the relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendants

No.8 to 17 from alienating the suit properties. The applicant/plaintiff

No.1 contended that she is the absolute owner and in possession of

the suit property. The defendants being the strangers to the suit

properties, they have alienated the same in favour of 3rd parties. She

further contended that during the pendency of this suit, defendants

No.1 to 7 alienated the suit properties in favour of defendants No.8

to 15. Now, they are also trying to alienate the suit properties only

with an intention to cause loss to the applicant/plaintiff.

9. On the other hand, the opponent/defendants contended that

the plaintiffs and their family members are no way concerned to the

suit properties. They are not aware about the alienation to the

original owner by name Madduramma. Now, the present applicant is

filed only with an intention to prolong the matter.

10. It is important to note that admittedly, the suit properties

are purchased by one Madduramma through the sale deed dated

29.05.1978. Thereafter, the said Madduramma died issue less.

Admittedly, Madduramma died on 10.04.1984. The applicants/

 6 O.S. No.302/2008

plaintiffs are claiming the ownership and possession of the suit

properties on the basis of the succession as a wife of step son.

Admittedly, Madduramma died issue less on 10.04.1989. As per the

contention of the defendants, Madduramma purchased the suit

properties out of her own income and died issue less. Thereafter, the

defendants became the absolute owners of the suit properties and

entered their names to the revenue records. Thereafter, the

defendants No.1 & 2 being the owners of the suit properties, they

have alienated the same in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 through

the sale deed dated 27.10.1988. Thereafter, the defendants No.3

to 6 have alienated the suit property in favour of defendant No.7

through the sale deed dated 25.01.2006. Thereafter, the defendant

No.7 alienated the suit properties in favour of defendants No.8 to 17

through the sale deed dated 25.01.2006. This suit is for the year

2008. Accordingly, all the transaction in respect of the suit properties

from the year 1984 to 2007 were took place prior to filing of this suit.

11. It is important to note that the applicant/plaintiff No.1

contended that during the pendency of this suit, the defendants have

alienated the suit properties. On perusal of the records, it is clear that

all the transaction in respect of suit properties from the year 1984 to
 7 O.S. No.302/2008

2007 have taken place prior to filing of this suit. As per the contention

of the defendants No.8 to 17, the suit properties and other

surrounding properties measuring 11 acres 8 guntas has been

completed and formed the layout by Bangalore Development

Authority. Thereafter, Bangalore Development Authority have

distributed the sites to the needed persons. Now, the suit purchasers

have constructed the houses and residing along with their family

members. It is important to note that as per the contention of the

defendants, the suit properties already lost its nature. Now, the

residential building were constructed in the suit properties. But, the

plaintiffs are claiming the suit properties as agricultural lands that

itself goes to show that the applicant/plaintiff has not made out prima-

facie case and she has not approached the court with clean hands.

On perusal of the records produced by the defendants, it is clear that

Madduramma purchased the suit properties on 10.04.1984.

Thereafter, she died issue less. Subsequently, his brothers entered

their names to the revenue records. Thereafter, they have alienated

the suit properties in favour of defendants No3 to 6 through the sale

deed dated 27.10.1988 and defendants No.3 to 6 have entered their

names to the revenue records of the suit properties. Thereafter, the

 8 O.S. No.302/2008

defendants No.3 to 6 have alienated the suit properties in favour of

defendant No.7 through the sale deed dated 25.11.2006 and entered

their names to the revenue records. Thereafter, they have converted

the suit property for residential layout. But, till today, the plaintiff has

not challenged the entries in the name of defendants. Now, the

plaintiffs are claiming injunction by suppressing the real facts. These

facts clearly go to show that the plaintiffs have not approached the

court with clean hands. Further, on perusal of the records produced

by both the parties, it is clear that since beginning, the plaintiffs and

their family members are not in possession of the suit properties.

The case of the plaintiffs is fit for go on trial. The case of the plaintiffs

is to be considered after recording evidence on both sides. When the

plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit properties, they have not

entitled for any relief of injunction.

12. It is important to note that on perusal of the documents

produced by the defendants, the suit properties and other

surrounding properties measuring 11 acres 8 guntas has been

converted and formed the residential layout. Thereafter, Bangalore

Development Authority have sold the suit properties in favour of

different persons. Therefore, the applicants/plaintiffs have not made

 9 O.S. No.302/2008

out any prima-facie. Further, there is no balance of convenience in

favour of applicants/plaintiffs. Because the defendants have invested

huge amount for development of the suit property and they have

distributed sites to the intending purchasers and other surrounding

properties measuring 11 acres 8 guntas. Under such circumstances,

balance of convenience is lies in favour of opponents/defendants.

Therefore, the applicants/plaintiffs have not made out any prima-facie

case for grant of temporary injunction. Accordingly, Points No.1 to 3

are answered in the Negative.

13. Point No.4: - In view of the above discussions and

conclusion to Points No.1 to 3, this court proceeds to pass the

following;

ORDERS
I.A No.10 U/o.39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC., filed by
the applicants/plaintiffs is rejected.
No orders as to cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced
th
in the open court on this the 12 day of Feb, 2016).

(T. Govindaiah)
Senior Civil Judge,
Anekal