- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32620 WP No. 15322 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 15322 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI SIDDAPPA S/O SIDDAIAH @ BAJAPPA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT MOTTEDODDI VILLAGE K P DODDI POST KYLANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA S/O LATE SIDDAIAH @ BAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS 2. SMT PRAMEELA S/O LATE SIDDAIAH @ BAJAPPA W/O LATE VENKATACHALA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3. SMT SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE SIDDAIAH @ BAJAPPA W/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 4. SMT SUDHA D/O LATE SIDDAIAH @ BAJAPPA Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32620 WP No. 15322 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT MOTTEDODDI VILLAGE K P DODDI POST KYLANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S. MANJANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT / ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 20.10.2020 IN M.A.NO.6/2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA CONFIRMING ANNEXURE-B, THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2018 ON I.A.NO.1 UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC PASSED IN O.S.NO.265/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGARA BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S OR RELIEF/S AS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32620 WP No. 15322 of 2020 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed praying to set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 20.10.2020, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara (‘the Appellate Court’ for short) passed in M.A.No.6/2018 and order dated 20.06.2018 on I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC passed in O.S. No. 265/2017 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara. 2 The petitioner herein is the appellant in M.A.No.6/2018 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.265/2017 and the respondents herein are the respondents in M.A.No.6/2018 and the defendants in O.S.No.265/2017. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents and perused the records. The present petition arises out the Order passed on interlocutory application in O.S.No.265/2017 on the file of the Principal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32620 WP No. 15322 of 2020 Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Ramanagara, instituted by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiff contended that he and defendants constitute members of a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and that the suit schedule property is ancestral in nature. It is asserted that one Siddalah @ Bojjappa, father of the plaintiff and defendants, was the propositus of the joint family, and he succeeded to the property described in the plaint schedule by inheritance from his father. The said property, being residential premises bearing Kaneshmari No. 15/251 measuring East to West 25 feet and North to South 75 feet, along with structures thereon, is situated at Mottedoddi Village, Koonagal Dakle, Hunasanahalli Gram Panchayat, Kaylanchan Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District. Siddalah @ Bojjappa died intestate on 11.05.1994, leaving behind his widow, Defendant No.1, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32620 WP No. 15322 of 2020 and children, namely, the plaintiff, Defendants No.2 to 4, and another son Ramesh (since deceased). The katha of the suit property was subsequently transferred to the name of Defendant No.1 as the eldest family member, while the parties continued in joint possession. The plaintiff alleged that Defendants No.1 to 3, acting in collusion, attempted to deprive him of his rightful share by transferring the katha of the schedule property in the names of Defendants No.2 to 4 without his consent or knowledge, with an intent to alienate the property. Repeated demands for partition were refused by the defendants, compelling the plaintiff to institute the suit for partition and separate possession before the trial court. Summons were issued, and the defendants entered appearance. Defendant No.1 filed her written statement, which was adopted by Defendants No.2 to 4, wherein she admitted the relationship of parties and the fact that the property originally stood in her late husband’s name. She, however, raised a contention that a family partition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32620 WP No. 15322 of 2020 allegedly took place in 1998, wherein land in Sy.No.227/2 measuring 27 guntas was allotted to the plaintiff, while another extent was allotted to the deceased son Ramesh, who subsequently sold his share. The written statement did not, however, specify that the suit schedule property formed part of the alleged partition. The plaintiff further filed I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. The trial court initially granted an ex parte order of injunction on 20.09.2017. Upon filing objections, which were adopted as objections to the said interlocutory application, the trial court, after hearing the parties, dismissed I.A. No.1 vide order dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure-B). Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred M.A. No.6/2018 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara, which was also dismissed on 20.10.2020 (Annexure-A). - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32620 WP No. 15322 of 2020 The plaintiff has produced on record the demand register extract evidencing that the schedule property originally stood in the name of late Siddalah @ Bojjappa, thereafter transferred to Defendant No.1, and subsequently transferred again to Defendant No.3 on 10.02.2019, during the pendency of the suit proceedings. The said transfer, effected while the litigation was sub judice, has been relied upon by the plaintiff to demonstrate mala fide conduct on the part of the defendants, further strengthening his claim for partition and protection of his rights over the suit property. Upon perusal of the pleadings, documents, and orders impugned herein, it is evident that the trial court and the first appellate court have dismissed the plaintiff’s interlocutory application and appeal primarily on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of injunction. However, the admitted status of the parties as legal heirs of Siddalah @ Bojjappa, the ancestral character of the schedule property, and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32620 WP No. 15322 of 2020 undisputed fact that the property has been subjected to successive transfers during pendency of litigation, cumulatively warrant deeper scrutiny at trial. The question as to whether the alleged partition of 1998 included the suit schedule property remains unanswered, and this issue will necessarily require adjudication upon full trial on merits. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction and had produced substantial documentary evidence to establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. This Court by Order by order dated 22.12.2020, directed the parties not to encumber or alienate the suit property. The said status quo order has been in operation till today. In view the status quo order, the Trial Court could not proceed with the matter. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32620 WP No. 15322 of 2020 7. In an injunction suit, lawful possession and interference must be established. Therefore, at this stage, without dwelling upon the merits of the case, it is directed that both the parties shall maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.265/2017 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Ramanagara. It is further directed that both the parties shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the suit. 8. In view of the same, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S.No.265/2017 as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64