SRI MUDDALINGASHETTY v. MUDDAIAH @ MUDDASHETTY DEAD BY LRS
WP/1765/2025 · 2025-02-12
H T Narendra Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13826 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13826 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6243 WP No. 1765 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1765 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. MUDDALINGASHETTY, S/O MUDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT KODAGAHALLI VILLAGE, B.G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUKA, MANDYA DISTRICT. NOW R/AT NO.96, 14TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, B.M.S NAGARA, METAGAHALLI VILLAGE, MYSURU - 570 016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE) AND:
MUDDAIAH @ MUDDASHETTY (DEAD BY LRS)
1. SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH, S/O LATE MUDDAIAH @ MUDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2. SMT. JAYA W/O NANJUNDASWAMY, D/O LATE MUDDAIAH @ MUDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT SUNKADAKATTE,
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6243 WP No. 1765 of 2025
NEAR KSRTC DEPOT, BENGALURU - 560 079. 3. SRI. SHANKARA S/O LATE MUDDAIAH @ MUDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
4. SRI. RAVIKUMAR, S/O LATE MUDDAIAH @ MUDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1(A, C AND D) ARE R/AT NO.343, 1/C ROAD, 18TH CROSS ROAD, 2ND STAGE, LIC COLONY, SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU - 570 008. 5. SMT. PUTTADEVAMMA W/O MUDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.343, 1/C ROAD, 18TH CROSS ROAD, 2ND STAGE, LIC COLONY, SRIRAMPURA, MYSURU - 570 008. 6. SRI. NANJUNASHETTY S/O LATE MUDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, PEON MUNICIPAL OFFICE, DANDELI HALIYAL TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 325. 7. SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O MADASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT CHIDARAVALLI VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI,
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6243 WP No. 1765 of 2025
T. NARASHIPURA TALUKA, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 120. 8. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O MANTAISHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, B.G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. 9. SRI. R. MAHESH, S/O LATE RACHASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O KODAGAHALLI VILLAGE, B.G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. 10. SRI. PUTTASHETTY S/O MUDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT KODAGAHALLI VILLAGE, B.G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALAVALLI, IN M.A.NO.23/2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6243 WP No. 1765 of 2025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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.6 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Malavalli in M.A.No.23/2022, whereby order passed by the Trial Court dated 16.11.2022 has been set aside. 2. Plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Petitioner - defendant No.6, who is the purchaser has filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking direction for restraining the plaintiff from interfering into the suit schedule property. The Trial Court by order dated 16.11.2022 has allowed the application. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal holding that the defendant No.6- petitioner cannot maintain the application under Order 39 Rule 1(b) and (c). Without considering this aspect of the matter,
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6243 WP No. 1765 of 2025
the Trial Court has granted an injunction order by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 4. The Appellate Court, after considering the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated 16.11.2022. There is no error or illegalities in the order passed by the First Appellate Court. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, all pending applications are disposed of.
Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE
JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9CT: BHK