1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.10571 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. C.ANKAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O CHANNEGOWDA 2. C. JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O A. CHANNEGOWDA ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF RUDRAKSHIPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TQ. MANDYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R.A.PRADEEPA @ CHIKKAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE APPAJI. 2. R.A.MAHADEVA @ PUTTAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE APPAJI BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF RUDRAKSHIPURA, ATHAGURU HOBLI MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.BASAVAIAH, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.14.01.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SR. CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR IN MA NOS.18 & 20/2018 (ANNEXURE-L) AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 14.01.2020 passed in M.A.Nos.18 and 20 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Maddur and quash the impugned orders dated 14.09.2018 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S.No. 358/2017, and on I.A. No.2 in O.S.No. 358/2017. 2. The Petitioner herein is the Decree Holder and Respondent herein is the Judgment Debtor before the Trial Court. 3 3. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 herein were defendants No.1 and 3 and Appellants No.1 and 3 before the trial Court and Appellate Court, respectively. The Respondents 1 and 2 herein were plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and Respondents No.1 and 2 before the trail Court and Appellate Court, respectively. 4. The Brief facts of the case are as follows: Respondents had filed a suit O.S. 358/2017 against the petitioners for declaration and permanent injunction contending that their grandfather Siddegowda, who had no issues, had adopted their mother Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma and Siddegowda, during his lifetime had executed a registered will on 18.04.1987 in favour of the Respondents making Lakshmi as their guardian with respect to the suit schedule properties. That the said Siddegowda passed away in the year 1989 and thereafter the revenue entries with respect to the schedule properties were transferred in the name of the Respondents and since then they were in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties. In 2002, Avarehalli Channamma, first wife of Siddegowda, under 4 the guise of family partition which had happened earlier, executed a registered sale deed in favour of the second petitioner herein on 16.12.2002 and thereafter, the petitioners entered into a registered partition and divided the suit schedule properties among them. The first petitioner had also entered into an agreement for sale on 01.08.2017 with respect to 17 guntas of land allotted to his share in the schedule properties. That the petitioners had created documents and tried to interfere with the respondents’ possession and hence they preferred the suit OS No.358/2017. In addition to the suit, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 were also filed seeking for temporary injunction for non-alienation and to restrain the petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment. The petitioners entered their appearance and filed their written statement denying the plaint averments. Then I.A Nos.1 and 2 were also filed by plaintiffs, seeking temporary injunction against the defendants, restraining them from alienating the suit property and declaration that they are the true owners of the suit schedule property, respectively. 5 The trial Court, by an order dated 14.09.2018 allowed both the I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and thereby granting injunction and declaring that the plaintiffs are true owners. Petitioners herein had preferred MA Nos.18 and 20 of 2018 before the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur, challenging the said orders. The Appellate Court by an order dated 14.01.2020 dismissed the appeals by confirming the orders passed by trial Court in I.A.Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Heard Counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent is absent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that both trial Court and appellate Courts have failed to give credence to the registered sale deed of 2002 and the current revenue entries which clearly shows that the petitioners are in possession. 7. It was also contended that Avarehalli Channamma had executed registered sale deed in the 6 year 2002 and since then, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and the revenue entries stand in their names. Further, the schedule properties have also been subjected to durast and phodi and new hissa numbers have been assigned. The trial and Appellate Court without giving credence to these aspects, passed the impugned orders. 8. It was further contended that the respondents have not disputed the relationship of Siddegowda and Avarahalli Channamma and also that for more than 15 years, they have not questioned the partition entered into between the wives of Siddegowda and registered sale deed was executed by Avarahalli Channamma in favour of the Second Petitioner and the Courts below without appreciating these facts, passed the impugned orders. 9. On hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, on perusal of the material on record and on Order of both trial court and first appellate Courts, it is observed that the prima-facie documents produced by the plaintiffs/respondents are substantially 7 and persistently establishes the title over the suit schedule properties which includes the property in question. The documents of the plaintiffs shows the inheritance of right in respect of the suit schedule properties and in absence of any strong documentary evidence so as to disbelieve the document produced by the plaintiffs, both the Courts cannot say anything against to the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have made out the prima-facie case in their favour. When the plaintiffs have made out prima-facie case, their right and possession as to be protected thereby, though the registered documents are in favour of the defendant No.2 and though the defendant No.1 to 3 have got divided between them and revenue documents stands in their name which are not based on the proper document of title from their vendor, unless and until the right of the vendor of defendant No.2 is established, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs rather than the petitioners/defendants thereby, when the plaintiffs have made out prima-facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents 8 the question of hardship that would cause to the appellants/respondents is of no consequence, since, the plaintiffs/respondents are in lawful possession as per the documents produced by them. Under these circumstances. 10. As could be seen from the order passed by both the trial Court and lower appellate Court, all the documents are produced by the parties before it and it has come to the right conclusion with an intention to protect the right of the respondents/plaintiffs and there is no illegality or misconception of facts. 11. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out good grounds so as to interfere with the Order passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the following order is passed: i) The Petition is dismissed. 9 ii) The Order dated order dated 14.01.2020 passed in M.A.Nos.18 and 20 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Maddur and the impugned orders dated 14.09.2018 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S.No. 358/2017, and on I.A. No.2 in O.S.No. 358/2017, are hereby confirmed. iii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-adp