MFA/9098/2019 of SMT. THIMMAKKA Vs SRI. V. RAJANNA on 31 December 2019

JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S.No.281/2019 have filed thisMiscellaneous First Appeal challenging the Order dated17.12.2019 by which trial Court had allowed I.A.No.1 filed bythe plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 and restrainedthe defendants from changing the nature of the suit property.

oD The plaintiff in O.S. No.281/2019 had sought forpartition and separate possession of his undivided share inthe suit schedule property. Along with the plaint, plaintiff hadalso filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 ofCode of Civil Procedure to restrain the defendants thereinfrom changing the nature of the suit schedule property.

3. |It is relevant to note that the very same plaintiff inO.S.No.281/2019 had filed O.S.No.4195/2019 for perpetual Injunction in respect of very same property but failed toobtain any interim relief and thus withdrew the suit. Theplaintiff thereafter filed O.S.No.4376/2019 without disclosingthe previous proceedings, again for perpetual injunction inrespect of the very same property and in the said suit theplaintiff was successful in getting an order of temporaryinjunction. This Order of temporary injunction was vacated interms of the Order of the Trial Court dated 11.10.2019 whichwas Challenged before this Court in M.F.A. No.8471/2019.When M.F.A.No.8471/2019 came up for consideration, libertywas sought to seek appropriate reliefs in O.S.No.281/2019which was a comprehensive suit for partition and separatepossession. This Court recorded the aforesaid submissionand disposed off M.F.A.No.8471/2019 reserving liberty to theplaintiff to pursue his remedy in O.S.No.281/20149.

4Laterthe|plaintiitfiled|allapplicationOT]17.12.2019 to advance the suit in O.S.No.281/2019 for considering the application for temporary injunction. TheTrial Court noticing the imminent need to pass an interim|order, refused the request for adjournment by the defendantsand passed an order dated 17.12.2019 and allowed theapplication. It is this order that the defendants are against inthis appeal before this Court.

5. |Heard the appellants and respondent No.1.

6. After the appeal was heard for sometime, thedefendants/appellants contended that they have already putup construction in a portion of property and that the status-quo may be maintained in respect of portion which is vacantand wherever there is no construction. On the other hand,counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the appellantshave proceeded with the construction even after the suit wasfiled and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court needsto be continued.

TS|Having regard to the fact that the suit is filed forpartition and separate possession of the suit scheduleproperty and having regard to the fact that the rights of theparties are still in a fluid state, it would be just and proper todirect status-quo of the property to be maintained until thesuit is disposed off. This order of status-quo shall be only tomaintain the status of the property as it exists today. Anybuildings which are in existence as on today shall remainuntouched by the parties and no further developments shallbe undertaken. With this observation this Miscellaneous FirstAppeal is disposed off.

Trial Court is requested to decide the suit expeditiously.

BV K

Sd/-|

JUDGE