The said reliefs were claimed inter alia on the premise that Nirmala was the adopted daughter of Obalappa.
The properties involve Survey No.
However, an application for amendment of plaint was filed on or about 5.08.2002 stating that the parties being belonging to Brahmo Samaj faith, Nirmala companyld claim as natural daughter of Kadarappa.
It is relevant to mention that in the original plaint the subject matter thereof was i a self acquired property of Obalappa ii the properties transferred by Kadarappa and iii new properties acquired by the family.
Awards companyts of this suit and Grant such other relief s, at this Honble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
Order of temporary injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants, their men, from alienating or altering the nature of the suit schedule properties.
The properties have number been sold for a long time.
No companyts.
To order directing enquiry into mesne profits under order XX Rule 12 Code of Civil Procedure.
However, in the amended plaint, the properties allotted to Kadarappa and joint family purportedly number partitioned in 1954 had also been included as Schedule D and E of the Plaint.
The properties may be valuable but would it be proper to issue an order of injunction restraining the Appellants herein from dealing with the properties in any manner whatsoever is the companye question.
The claim that Nirmala was the adopted daughter, however, was specifically pleaded by the plaintiffs.
A purported partition took place between Kadarappa and his sons on 15.6.1954.
46 C, Doddabylakhana, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore and Survey No.
XI is allowed.
The companyrts below did number pose these questions unto themselves and, thus, misdirected themselves in law.
12 of 2006 and 843 44 of 2006 respectively.
In fact in a writ petition questioning acquisition of some properties which were the subject matter of writ petition No.
An application for injunction was filed and by an order dated 16.01.2003, the Appellants herein were restrained in dealing with the properties directing A. No.
The suit was filed by the Respondents on 7.09.2000 wherein the following reliefs were prayed for WHEREFOR, the plaintiff prays for a judgment and decree for partition of their share in the schedule property Directing the partition of the suit Schedule and to allot them in favour of plaintiffs Restrain the defendants, their agents or any person claiming through from alienating the suit properties, by granting an order of permanent injunction.
They have number been able to enjoy the fruits of the development agreements.
He had numberissue.
It is stated that she was number entitled thereto.
12 of 2006 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
97/2 Old No.
843 844 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted in S.L.Ps.
4102 OF 2006 Arising out of SLP Civil No.
The plaintiffs respondents are said to be the heirs of the natural daughter of Kadarappa, viz.,
In the said application for amendment, however it was averred that Nirmala was adopted when she was about three years old.
Nirmala.
Kadarappa died in 1961 leaving seven sons and one daughter Nirmala, whose heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiffs claimed themselves, she died in the year 1999.
15217 21 of 1987, she had allegedly admitted that the properties which were subject matter of acquisition were separate and distinct.
One M. Obalappa was the owner of the property.
66 and 75/1, Sarakki, Uttarhalli Hobli, Bangalore.
The Appellants herein companytend that Nirmala, during her life time, never claimed to be an adopted daughter and she did number have any interest in the joint family properties.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
M. Obalappa died in 1889.
According to the Appellants, the joint family property devolved by survivorship to Kadarappa.
Nagappa separated himself in the year 1913.
An application for modification of the said order was filed which has been dismissed by an order dated 15.11.2005.
Obalappa died in 1949.
These appeals involving companymon questions of law and fact and having arisen from a companymon judgment were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
Allegedly, she was adopted by Obalappa during his life time.
The children of Kadarappa, Gurudas and Others, and their sons, Sagunarthy and Shivarthy, are the Appellants in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP C No.
The said order was modified by an order dated 29.09.2005 directing that the development of the said property would be subject to restriction in regard to dealing therewith.
Nagappa, Obalappa and Kadarappa.
He had three sons, viz.,
Obalappa and Kadarappa were, thus, in joint possession of the properties in suit.
On or about 18.03.2003, the High Court passed an interim order directing that numberalienation would take place, save and except the share of the builders.
