Misc. First Appeal No. 6656 of 2010. Case: D. Narasimhalu Naidu @ D.N. Naidu, S/o. late Doreswamy Naidu Vs Smt. Seema, W/o. Raju, D/o. Ramakrishnappa and Ors.. Karnataka High Court
|Case Number:||Misc. First Appeal No. 6656 of 2010|
|Party Name:||D. Narasimhalu Naidu @ D.N. Naidu, S/o. late Doreswamy Naidu Vs Smt. Seema, W/o. Raju, D/o. Ramakrishnappa and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: D.R.P. Babu, Adv. And For Respondents: R. Keshava Murthy, Adv. and N. Vageesh, Adv.|
|Judges:||A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.|
|Issue:||Hindu Succession Act - Section 6; Civil Procedure Code (CPC)|
|Judgement Date:||July 11, 2011|
|Court:||Karnataka High Court|
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J., (At Bangalore)
This appeal is by the 3rd Defendant in the suit, questioning an order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge, whereby, the 4th Defendant -Spl.LAO, was restrained from disbursing the compensation amount for acquisition of the suit property in favour of the other Defendants. For convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the suit.
Material facts of the case for the purpose of consideration and disposal of this appeal are:
Plaintiffs/Respondents 3 and 2 herein, filed O.S.905/201C in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.,) at Devanahalli to pass judgment and decree declaring that, they are jointly entitled for half share in the plaint schedule property and that, they are entitled for half share in the compensation awarded by the 4th Defendant/Spl.LAO, K.I.A.D.B., and to restrain the 4th Defendant from disbursing the compensation amount for acquisition of the plaint schedule property in favour of any of the Defendants and for costs. The property shown in the schedule of the plaint is part and parcel of agricultural property bearing Sy. No. 6/330 measuring 2 acres situated as Singahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The case of the Plaintiffs in a nut shell is that, the propositus Chikkappaiah had two sons by name Ramakrishnappa (Defendant No. 1) and Venkatesh and they and Defendant No. 2 as the daughters and son respectively of Defendant No 1 and that they all constitute undivided joint Hindu family and the suit property is their joint family ancestral property, which fell to the share of Defendant 1 in a partition between himself and his brothers. It has been alleged that, Defendants 1 and 2 in collusion, nave illegally alienated the suit property in favour of Defendant 3/Appellant, under a registered sale deed dated 16.4.2005, to deprive the Plaintiffs of their share. It has been contended that, they are not signatories to the said sale deed and the same is not binding on them. According to Plaintiffs, there is no partition between themselves and Defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the family properties and that there is no severance of status and that, they and Defendants 1 and 2 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which was acquired by K.I.A.D.B.,. It has been further alleged that, 4th Defendant/Spl.LAO, in collusion with Defendants 1 to 3 is making hectic efforts to pay the compensation to them.
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL