- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6423 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GURUSIDDAIAH, S/O LATE SRI. CHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY, S/O LATE SRI. CHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF KALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NARAYANRAO, S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1(A). SMT. SUMITHRAMMA, W/O LATE SRI. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT NO.341/1, NEAR BEHANTHA CHRUCH, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 001. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 1(B). SMT. VIJAYA N, D/O LATE SRI. NARAYANA RAO, W/O SRI. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.341/1, NEAR BEHANTHA CHRUCH, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 001. 1(C). SMT. VINODA N, D/O LATE SRI. NARAYANA RAO, W/O SRI. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT DODDAMAREGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 001. 1(D). SMT. MANJULA N, D/O LATE SRI. NARAYANA RAO, W/O SRI. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KARAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ILAVALA HOBLI, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001. 2. SRI. VASUDEVA MURTHY, S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNAIAH, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS OF 2(A). SRI. JAYAPRAKASH V, S/O LATE SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO. 343, LIG-1, 6TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, 1ST PHASE, SHARADADEVINAGAR, MYSORE CITY - 570 022. 2(B). SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY V, S/O LATE SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1616/A, 2ND CROSS, 2ND STAGE, SRIRAMPURA, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE CITY - 570 008. 2(C). SRI. MANJUNATHA V, S/O LATE SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 743, NEAR CHIKKAMMA TEMPLE, YARAGANAHALLI, MYSORE CITY - 570 011. 2(D). SRI. NANDAKUMAR V, S/O LATE SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO. 350, 3RD CROSS, VIDYANAGARA, MYSORE CITY - 570 029. 2(E). SMT. PADMAVATHHI, D/O LATE SRI. VASUDEVAMURTHY, W/O LATE SRI. LAKSHMIKANTHA R, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3561, MARUTHI BADAVANE, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105. 3. SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 3(A). SMT. PRAMEELA, W/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT KASTTHURU VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 3(B). SMT. LATHA S, W/O SRI. SRINIVAS T.K, S/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT TERAKANAMBI VILLAGE, GUNDLUPETE TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 111. 3(C). SMT. SHASHIKALA, W/O SRI. VISHVANATH M.N, D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KIKKERI VILLAGE, CHATTRADA BEEDI, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 577 133. 3(D). SMT. SHOBA K.S, W/O SRIKANTASHARMA, D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. 783, BASAVANAGUDI 2ND STAGE, TEACHERS COLONY, NANJANGUD, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 301. 3(E). SMT. ANITHA, W/O SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR T.S, D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT THONDAVADI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLPETE TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 111. 3(F). SRI. RAJAGOPAL, S/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO D), R2 (A TO E), R3(A TO F)) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 O THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT CHAMARAJANAGARA IN M.A.NO.20/2015 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED 16.04.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, YELANDUR ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.109/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in MA No.20/2015 dated 18.11.2017 by the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chamarajanagar, whereby the Court had confirmed the order passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.109/2014 dated 16.04.2015 by the Court of the R/AT KASTTHURU VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 313. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 Civil Judge and JMFC at Yelandur, the defendants are before this Court. 2. Respondents herein who are the plaintiffs have filed the suit for bare injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the father of the plaintiffs has executed mortgage deed dated 23.03.1961 in favour of the father of the defendants but the physical possession of the property was not handed over to the father of the defendants. Thereafter, the father of the defendants had received the mortgage amount from the father of the plaintiffs and both agreed to discharge Shara of the mortgage deed before the sub-registrar. It is their case that since 1961 till today, the revenue documents transferred in the name of the plaintiffs' father and after his death, the plaintiffs' are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On 11.03.2015, when the defendants started obstructing and interfering with the plaintiffs' physical possession of the agricultural work and for harvesting the crop, they were made to file the suit. The trial Court on - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 I.A.No.1 dated 16.04.2015, had granted interim injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. The trial Court had observed that in the recent record of rights, which is produced by the defendants, the name of the father of the defendants is shown at column No.11 and as per RRT except the said document, the defendants have not produced any document to show that their father's name is entered in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property and all the revenue records reflects the name of the plaintiffs' father and thereafter the plaintiffs names and the Court observed that if the I.A. is rejected, more mischief and hardship will be caused to the plaintiffs than the mischief and hardship to the defendants and accordingly granted injunction. The matter was carried in appeal by filing M.A.No.20/2015 before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar. The same came to be dismissed on 18.11.2017 confirming the order of the trial court on I.A.No.1. The Appellate Court has also - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 perused the revenue records where right from the date, even after the mortgage deed is executed, how the name of the plaintiffs' father and thereafter the plaintiffs names are reflected and the Court has come to the conclusion that prime facie the plaintiffs could establish their possession whereas the defendants have not placed any document before the Court to show that they are in possession of the property and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ defendants submits that when there is a registered mortgage deed, when the said mortgage is not discharged, it prime facie shows that the defendants are in possession of the property. He submits that he has drawn the attention of the Court to the recitals in the mortgage deed and submits that the recitals show that the possession is delivered. When the said document is marked and when the Court has also taken note of it, both the Courts went wrong in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. He - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 submits that both the Courts have failed to consider both factual and the legal aspects in it's proper perspective. Hence, the impugned order needs to be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents /plaintiffs submits that when an application is filed seeking injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to show that there is a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. He submits that in this case, the plaintiffs could establish all these 3 ingredients and rightly Court had granted injunction and rightly it is affirmed by the Appellate Court and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Court below and prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. 6. The respondents have filed the suit for bare injunction and they have filed an I.A. seeking injunction. When an application is filed seeking injunction, the Court - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 will necessarily look at the prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable loss. According to both the parties, the mortgage is of the year 1961. The plaintiffs have placed before this Court the tax receipts and also the revenue entries which are in the name of the plaintiffs father and thereafter in the names of the plaintiffs and prima facie, it shows that the plaintiffs could make out a prima facie case. When it comes to the defendants, the defendants have not placed any documents. The contention of the learned counsel that when there is a registered mortgage deed and when the possession is delivered, there cannot be an observation that the plaintiffs are in possession. As this is a suit for bare injunction and not a suit for declaration and while considering an interim application, the Court has to necessarily look at the three ingredients and in the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage the plaintiffs would make out a prima facie case. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no illegality with the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:313 WP No. 6423 of 2018 order passed by both the Courts and accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) Any of the observations made by this Court shall not be construed as an expression of this Court and the trial Court uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court or the appellate Court shall and proceed with the matter. (iii) All I.As., in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT: BHK