SRI. KODANDARAM. P v. COURT OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
SRI. KODANDARAM. P S/O. LATE S. A. PILLAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO. 27, 10TH MAIN SRINAGARA, BSK 1ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 050. (BY SRI. NAMAN JHABAKH.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. NINGAMMA W/O. HONNEGOWDA @ M. HONNEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA D/O. M. HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O. M. HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RAMACHANDREGOWDA S/O. M. HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5622 WP No. 24787 of 2023
M. K. KUMAR S/O. KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
M. K. KRUPA D/O. LATE KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
M. K. ASHOK S/O. LATE KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
SMT. RENUKA W/O. RAMACHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
M. R. VINODKUMAR W/O. RAMACHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
M. R. VIDHYASHREE D/O. RAMACHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
M. R. SHREYAS W/O. RAMACHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
SMT. RAJESWARI W/O. M. K. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
SMT. MANJULA W/O. M. K. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
SHANTHAMMA W/O. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5622 WP No. 24787 of 2023 R1 TO R14 ARE RESIDING AT MATHIKERE VILLAGE MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562160. (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R13: NOTICE TO R14 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED: 31.8.2023 PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS IN M.A.NO.23/2022 ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.5.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND IN O.S.NO.44/2021 ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. JUDGE, RAMANAGAR JMFC, CHANNAPATNA THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by defendant No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, whereby the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapattana, dated 25.05.2002 in O.S.No.44/2021 was confirmed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5622 WP No. 24787 of 2023
2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of the agreement of sale dated 11.01.2023. Along with the plaint, they filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2.
3. After hearing the parties, the trial court, by order dated 25.05.2022 allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the I Appellate Court in M.A.No.23/2022. The I Appellate Court, by order dated 31.08.2023 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the defendant No.1 is before this Court.
4. The only grievance of the petitioner/defendant No.1 is that, the plaintiff is trying to alienate the property and also trying to put up construction on the suit schedule property when the suit is pending before the trial court for consideration.
Operative part
5. Now, that the suit is at the stage of evidence of the parties. Under the circumstances, the following order is passed: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5622 WP No. 24787 of 2023 The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents/plaintiffs not to create any third party interest in respect of the suit schedule property. It is made clear that they shall not claim any equity, in any construction made in the suit schedule property, in case, if they fail in the suit. In view of disposal of the main petition, the pending IAs. do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.