Sri V. N. Krishna Murthy & Anr. Etc. vs. Sri Ravikumar & Ors. Etc.

By- Tanya Gupta


Date of Judgement: 21 August, 2020


The settling of debate can be summed up as under:- Dispute identifies with land included in Survey estimating 37 guntas, Survey estimating 34 guntas and Survey estimating 20 guntas, arrange at Village Jakkur, Bengaluru, North Taluk.

Respondent in this who was recorded proprietor of the land in contest executed an enlisted understanding of offer of the land in question for Respondent, Karnataka State Khadi and Village Industries Worker’s House Building Co-employable Society Ltd.

Other than executing enrolled consent to deal dated 31.10.1989 and 05.08.1992 one next to the other they likewise executed a General Power of Attorney for office carriers of the respondent society approving them to go into a deal exchange of the suit property for their benefit.

It is to be observed that General Power of Attorney was executed giving total rights to the Attorney to do every such demonstration which are vital available to be purchased of the property.


To pronounce and drop the enlisted further understanding for sell dated 31.10.1989 executed by Defendant for the society which is enrolled as record put away in the workplace of the Sub Registrar Yelahanka, Bangalore just as unregistered consent to sell dated 23.05.1988 as banned by time, on the other hand, if there should arise an occurrence of default by the third respondent, this Hon’ble Court be satisfied to execute wiping out consent to sell through court official.

The third respondent is coordinated to execute an enlisted abrogation deed before the jurisdictional Sub Registrar.

To grant and issue a judgment and pronouncement of lasting directive limiting the Defendant/s, their operators, or anyone following up for their sake from meddling with the ownership suit plan property.

Directive limiting the litigants their operators, workers, authorities, appoints or anybody acting or asserting for their sake from annihilating or in any capacity entering upon or in any capacity meddling property.


Despite the fact that it has been intensely fought before us and furthermore argued under the High Court that the judgment and announcement of the Trial Court influence the appellants unfavorably, the appellants have neglected to put any material or show with respect to how the judgment and announcement passed by the Trial Court antagonistically or preferentially influences them.

A simple saying that the appellants are preferentially influenced by the pronouncement isn’t adequate. It must be shown that the pronouncement influences the legitimate privileges of the appellants and would have an unfriendly impact when completed.

Realities of the case unmistakably show that suit which has been proclaimed is kept distinctly to a presentation looked for in regard to a consent to sell. The order was likewise looked for just against the litigant society or its officials or doles out.

There isn’t so much as a murmur in the whole plaint or in suit procedures about the deal deed executed for the appellants by the General Power of Attorney holders or in any event, besides in the judgment and pronouncement of the Trial Court.

Taking into account the realities and conversations, we discover no illness in the judgment of the High Court excusing the application recorded by the appellants looking for leave to request against the declaration.

The interests, likewise, stand excused. Be that as it may, we leave the gatherings to tolerate their own expenses.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: