- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24501 WP No. 15861 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 15861 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: RAMANNA S/O LATE GOOLAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT KUTHARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SIDDESH H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE GOOLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 2. PREMAMMA W/O GANTHANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT KUTHARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 130 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24501 WP No. 15861 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13/02/2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, AT KUNIGAL IN M.A.NO.32/2023 AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02/12/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL IN O.S.NO.105/2022 WHEREBY THE I.A.NO.1 THAT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AS PER ANNEXURE A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner/defendant No.2 is before this Court calling in question order dated 13.02.2024, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.32 of 2023, whereby, the order dated 02.12.2023, passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal, on an application - I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, by the plaintiff, in O.S.No.105/2022, is affirmed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24501 WP No. 15861 of 2024 2. Heard Sri H.Siddesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The petitioner is the 2nddefendant and 1st respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.105/2022 seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property on interference by the defendants. In the said suit, an application – I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is preferred seeking temporary injunction. Temporary injunction comes to be granted. The concerned Court by a detailed order allows the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 on the following reasons: “8. Point No.1 to 3: Since these points are inter connected with each other, they are taken together for the discussion in order to avoid the repetition of the facts and circumstances. 9. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is her claimed that the suit schedule proper-ties have fallen to the share of her husband Goolaiah under the partition and after his demise she continued to be in possession of the suit schedule properties. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for plaintiff has produced the copy of order sheet in LAC No.49/2007 filed by defendant No.2 against SLAO, Tumakuru and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24501 WP No. 15861 of 2024 another. From the order sheet it clearly appears on primafacie that the land of defendant No.2 has been acquired by the government and also paid the compensation. 10. Further it can be seen that defendant No.2 has also filed a suit vide O.S.No.260/2017 on the files of this Court wherein he has sought for declaration and stated that he is ready to refund the compensation amount. By looking into these aspects, it appears at this stage the land of defendant No.2 has been acquired by the government and he has also received the compensation amount. The contention of the defendant that the parties in Sy.No.12 are in possession from east to west and not north to south is to be considered at the time of trial. 11. But at this stage the defendant has failed to show to the satisfaction of this Court on primafacie that he is in possession of the suit schedule properties. Further the documents produced by the plaintiff at this stage it appears that it was appearing in the name of Thirumalagiraiah and thereafter Goolaiah and now in the name of plaintiff. Hence by looking into these aspects, at this stage the plaintiff has succeeded to prove primafacie case and also balance of convenience in her favour. If the application is not allowed it is the plaintiff who would put to irreparable loss than in comparison with the defendant. Accordingly Point No.1 to 3 are answered in the Affirmative. 12. Point No.4: For the above discussed reasons, this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER IA No.I filed by the plaintiff under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed. Defendants or their agents or henchmen or anybody claiming on behalf of them are hereby temporarily restrained from interfering with the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24501 WP No. 15861 of 2024 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties during the pendency of this suit.” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court observes that the suit has been preferred for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property on the score that the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of the husband of the plaintiff under a partition and after the demise of her husband, she continues to be in possession of the property. Therefore, a prima facie case was found of the plaintiff being in possession of the property. This is called in question by defendant No.2 before the 1st appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.32 of 2023. The first Appellate Court again considered the entire spectrum of fact and on perusal of entire records holds that the plaintiff prima facie proves that she is in possession of the property. The reasons so rendered are as follows: “13. In support of the contention of the appellant he produced copy of adoption deed, RTCs, sale deeds dated 06.05.1942, 20.07.1960, 04.08.1960, 14.07.1934 and 26.06.1958 and also survey sketch. On perusal of the documents produced along with the written statement it is clear that, it is not in dispute that the husband of the respondent No.1 was in possession of land - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24501 WP No. 15861 of 2024 Sy.No.12/1 and 12/3. It is the contention of the appellant that, the survey authorities have conducted phodi work from North to South instead of East to West in which direction the parties are in possession of the land in Sy.No.12. In support of the contention as to the parties are in possession of East- West direction the appellant got produced sale deeds of the year 1934, 1960 which clearly depicts that, towards East of Sy.No.12 there is a Canal which supports the case of the appellant. Further in none of the sale deeds there is a mention as to towards south of the land there is a Canal as such it appears that the parties are in possession of land in Sy.No.12 towards East-West and not North- South. It is the contention of the respondent No.1 that, the appellant has obtained compensation for acquisition of land by the SLAO of Hemavathi Canal and also find LAC 49/2007 as such he cannot contend that he is still in possession of the land. On perusal of the award notice it is clear that, the land of the appellant is acquired by the SLAO as such until and unless the possession is recovered the question of appellant being in possession does not arise. Admittedly the contention of the appellant is that, he is still in possession of the land and he filed suit in OS.No.260/2017 seeking refund of compensation and declaration as such the question of he interfering with the possession of the respondent No.1 does not arise. It is also contended that, the trial court without appreciating the documents produced by the appellant has passed erroneous order which is liable to be set aside but, careful perusal of the documents produced along with the appeal it appears that, the appellant may be in possession of land bearing Sy.No.12 but as per the records the possession of his land is taken over by the SLAO and compensation is received by the appellant which falsifies the case of the appellant as to he is still in possession of the land in Sy.No.12. There is a dispute as to survey conducted by the Survey authorities in land Sy.No.12 as such in order to know the exact possession held by the parties to the suit the holding of trial is necessary as such the trial court after considering the all the materials as passed right order which does not call for interference. Further it is made clear that, this order will - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24501 WP No. 15861 of 2024 not come in the way of trial court deciding the suit on merits. Hence, I answer Point No.1 as negative. 14. POINT NO.2:- For the forgoing reasons and discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Appellant/defendant under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC is hereby dismissed. I.A.No.1 filed U/O 41 rule 5 is dismissed. The orders passed in O.S.105/2022 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., Kunigal dated 02.12.2023 is hereby confirmed.” (Emphasis added) The 1st Appellate Court notices the sale deeds, RTCs and all other contemporaneous documents and also notices that the suit schedule property is the subject matter of acquisition for Hemavathi Canal and observes that until possession is recovered, the defendant being in possession does not arise. The plaintiff has been in possession is the observation. The suit is still pending adjudication. What is now granted is only an injunction, injuncting the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Prima facie both the Courts have found that the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit schedule property. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24501 WP No. 15861 of 2024 4. A perusal at the orders quoted hereinabove would nowhere indicate that they suffer from any perversity or error apparent for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hold that grant of temporary injunction has resulted in failure of justice. 5. Finding no merit in this petition, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20