- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11449 WP No. 1374 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1374 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.VIJAYENDRA RAO S/O HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT GANDHINAGARA SHIRALAKOPPA, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577428. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G L VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PURNACHANDRA M PURANIK., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.SATYANARAYANA RAO S/O PRAHALLAD RAO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT GANDHINAGARA SHIRALAKOPPA,SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577428. 2. SMT SUNANDA K R WIFE OF RAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT KUMARANAHALLI POST MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11449 WP No. 1374 of 2025 (BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRUTHIVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 16.12.2024 IN M.A.NO. 17/2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIKARIPURA (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 16.12.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura in M.A.No.17/2024, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the order passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Shikaripura in O.S.No.366/2023 dated 27.04.2024 was set aside. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction. Along with the plaint, he filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction against the defendants. The trial court, by order dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11449 WP No. 1374 of 2025 27.04.2024 dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.17/2024. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction order. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 is before this Court. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, the suit schedule property is the inam land, it was a joint family property of Hanumantha Rao and Prahallada Rao. Only for the purpose of convenience of cultivation, khata and mutation in respect of the schedule property it was agreed to be made in the name of father of the plaintiff/respondent herein. (ii) Secondly, there was no partition among the family members in respect of the suit schedule property. Since it is an inam land, there is a bar under the Act for partition of the property among the family members before the re-grant. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11449 WP No. 1374 of 2025 (iii) Thirdly, with the consent of the other family members, the land has been granted in the name of Prahallad Rao. Even today, they are cultivating the property jointly. Therefore, no injunction can be granted against the co-owner of the property. The trial court has rightly rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.RAMALINGESWARA RAO (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ANOTHER vs. N.MADHAVA RAO AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 4 SCC 608. (iv) Fourthly, the trial court, by exercising the discretionary power has dismissed the application. The scope of interference by the Appellate Court into the reasoned order by the trial court is very limited. The Appellate Court, contrary to the materials available on record has allowed the appeal. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11449 WP No. 1374 of 2025 in the case of WANDER LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. ANTOX INDIA P. LTD. reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727. (v) Fifthly, since the suit schedule property is the joint family property, even though it is granted in favour of Prahllada Rao, the grant enures to the benefit of the entire family, the same is not exclusive properties of the grantee. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of SHIVAPPA FAKIRAPPA SHETSANADI vs. KANNAPPA MALLAPPA SHETSANADI reported in ILR 1987 Kar.3155. (vi) Lastly, when the title of the plaintiff is doubtful, the suit for injunction is not maintainable. To that effect, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR vs. P.BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRs. AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 raised the following contentions: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11449 WP No. 1374 of 2025 (i) Firstly, the suit schedule property is the inam land. Before re-grant of the land, in the year 1965, there was a partition among the family members. In the partition, this property was allotted to the plaintiff’s father. Since there is no bar under the Village Officers Abolition Act for the partition of the inam land among the family members, after the re-grant it will enure to the benefit of plaintiff’s father. (ii) Secondly, on the basis of the partition, there was mutation entry in the name of father of the plaintiff in MR No.1/66-67. From the date of partition, the plaintiff was in the possession of the property. (iii) Thirdly, once the land has been re-granted to the original grantee, it will enure to the benefit of the plaintiff on the basis of the partition. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of LAKSHMANA GOWDA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMETN OF LAW AND PARLIAMETARY - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11449 WP No. 1374 of 2025 AFFAIRS, BAGALORE – 1 AND OTHERS (W.P.No. 2613/1979 disposed of on 03.07.1980). (iv) Fourthly, the defendant himself has admitted that there was partition, suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Prahllada Rao and there was a mutation entry, i.e., MR No.1/66-67. Even in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner he has admitted that there was a partition among the family members and the property in dispute was allotted to Prahallada Rao and the mutation entries made in the year 1965 has not been challenged till 2023. Therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly granted an order of injunction. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 6. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property is the inam land. It is also not in dispute that it was the joint family property of Hanumantha Rao and Prahallada Rao. The specific contention of the plaintiff is that, before - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11449 WP No. 1374 of 2025 re-grant in the year 1965, there was a partition among the family members. This property has been allotted to Prahallada Rao. Pursuant to the partition, there was mutation entry in M.R.No.1/66-67. From that day, the plaintiff was in the possession of the property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the partition, parties have acted upon the partition and after the re- grant of the land, the property will enure to the benefit of Prahallada Rao on the basis of the partition. Even the land was also granted in the name of Prahallada Rao. The specific contention of the defendant is that for the purpose of convenience of cultivation, khata and mutation in respect of suit schedule property it was agreed to be made in the name of the father of the plaintiff. They have denied the partition, i.e., Jubani Hissa in 1965. But in the pleadings, he has contended that he was in the possession of the property as a co-owner, therefore, there is inconsistency in the pleadings of the plaintiff. The defendants also contended that it is the joint family property, they were cultivating the property jointly and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11449 WP No. 1374 of 2025 they have also taken an inconsistent plea that there was oral agreement that plaintiff’s father has agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,000/-. Both the parties have taken inconsistent pleas regarding the ownership as well as the possession is concerned. 7. Since both the parties are inconsistent in pleading the ownership as well as the possession, this issue has to be decided only by a ful-fledged trial. 8. In view of the above, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is disposed of. (ii) The order passed by the Appellate Court dated 16.12.2024 in M.A.No.17/2024 is modified to the effect that, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11449 WP No. 1374 of 2025 (iii) The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in the course of this order. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35