- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41470 WP No. 25977 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 25977 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT. IMARAKUNTE VILLAGE, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK. KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA R.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI REDDAPPA SWAMY @ VENKATAREDDY, S/O. RAMAREDDY. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT SUGATUR VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGATTA TALUK. CHIKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 102. 2. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA @ VENKATARAMEGOWDA S/O. LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELDUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. 3. SRI. SRINIVASAREDDY S/O. DODDAPPA, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41470 WP No. 25977 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT. BYAPALLI VILLAGE, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135 4. SRI. K.C. NAGANNA, S/O. LATE K.C. CHIKKARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT. KOLLUR VILLAGE. KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. 5. SRI. C.S. JANARDHANA, S/O. SEETHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELDUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135 …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED RECORDS AND ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER BY GRANTING THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR (ITINERATE AT SRINIVASAPURA) IN M.A.NO. 9/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41470 WP No. 25977 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to respondents for the reasons mentioned herein below. 3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the impugned order passed in O.S No. 175/2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Srinivasapura and the order dated 27.06.2025 passed in M.A.No.9/2024 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Kolar, (Itinerate at Srinivasapura). 4. Respondents/plaintiffs preferred a suit for permanent injunction before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Srinivasapura against the petitioner/defendant making several allegations and contentions against the petitioner/defendant before the trial Court with regard to the suit property land measuring Survey No.7, totally - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41470 WP No. 25977 of 2025 measuring 110.33 acres out of which 5 acres 17 guntas situated at Chokkanahalli Village, Ronur Hobli, Srinivasapura, Taluk, Kolar District. 5. Plaintiffs/respondents had pleaded that they are the trustees of Atmananda Yogeshwaraswamy Seva Trust, Chokknahalli village established during the year 1975. The scheduled property was granted in the name of Sri Admanantha Yogeshwaraswamy through Bagar Hukkum Saguvali under Darkasth during the year 1965. The same is entered in the RTC in the year 1978-1979 to 1981-1982 and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. Along with the plaint, the respondents/ plaintiffs have filed application IA.No.1 under 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendant therein, who is the petitioner herein, or the agents, servants from cutting, removal of standing trees in the suit schedule property. 6. Initially, an ad-interim order of maintenance of status quo was granted till the next date of hearing and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41470 WP No. 25977 of 2025 the suit summons was ordered against the defendant. Upon the appearance of the defendant, objections being filed and on hearing the parties to the proceedings, the trial Court granted an order of injunction by allowing the application and restraining the defendant/petitioner, her men, servants, agents, family members, and any other person claiming through or under the defendant temporarily from cutting and removing the standing trees in the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal in MA.No.09/2024 before the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Kolar, itinerate at Srinivaspura. The first appellate court after hearing the petitioner/defendant as well as the respondents/plaintiffs and upon submission of their documents and on perusal of the order of the trial Court was not in favour of the petitioner/defendant came to the conclusion that no case is made out by the petitioner for setting aside the order or considering the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41470 WP No. 25977 of 2025 claim so made and accordingly at paragraph 18 of the said order is held as under. "18) The discussion of the rival pleadings supra and the documents relied by the parties to the lis depicts that it is admitted that suit schedule property is originally Gomala land. Both the parties claim that they have been granted the said land. The plaintiffs claim that they have been granted 5 acres 17 guntas, whereas the defendant claims that he has been granted 4 acres 30 guntas. To substantiate their version plaintiffs have produced RTC extracts and endorsement of Trust Deed. It is pertinent to note that RTC extracts pertaining to the entry of defendant's name and also mutation extract were canceled by the authority and also there is an endorsement which depicts that pertaining to the land grant made to the defendant under LND RUO Ⓡ 139/1981-82 records are not available in the Tahasildar office. In such circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case. The plaintiffs relied on mahazar of the year 2017. Whether on the basis of said documents it can be considered that the defendant is in COWR possession of the property that too, the property in which the plaintiffs are claiming, can be ascertained only after full fledged trial. At this stage, on the pleadings and proof placed by the parties leads to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41470 WP No. 25977 of 2025 conclusion that there is triable issue involved in the matter which requires full fledge trial." 8. It is categorically held by the first appellate Court that "the RTC extracts pertaining to the entry of the defendant's name and also the mutation extract were cancelled by the authority and also there is an endorsement which depicts pertaining to the land grant made to the defendant under LND RUO Ⓡ 139/ 1981- 1982 records are not available in the Thasildar Office." 9. On the basis of the same the first appellate court came to a conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs made out a prima facie case, and accordingly, the interim order granted by the trial Court came to be affirmed by the first appellate court. 10. I have perused the orders of the first appellate court and also the trial Court and the reasoning of the first appellate Court. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41470 WP No. 25977 of 2025 first appellate court. Accordingly, the following order is passed. ORDER Petition is devoid of merit; the same is dismissed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9