- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 8505 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA @ MUNIYELAGAMMA, DECEASED, PETITIONER NOs.4 TO 7 ARE THE LRS. 2. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 3. SMT. RAMAKKA W/O LATE M. RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 4. SRI SATYANARAYANA S/O LATE M.T. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 5. SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE M T GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 6. SRI DATTATREYA S/O LATE M.T. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 7. SRI HULURAPPA S/O LATE M T GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 8. SRI UMESH S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 9. SRI HARISH S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT HIRANDALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 049. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI AJITH N, ADV., FOR SRI S. SUBRAMANYA, ADV., FOR -2 TO P-5; P-1 DEAD BY LRs P-2 TO P-5 V/ DTD 19.11.2025) AND: H.T. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT HIRANDALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 049. ALSO R/AT C/O NAGARAJA (KODAPPA) NO.8/2, A CROSS, NEAR VINAYAKA PRINTING PRESS, BASAPPA GARDEN, PIPELINE MUNESHWARARAM MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 003. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.H. THIMMAIAH, ADV.) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.06.2020 PASSED IN M.A.10/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendants are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 06.06.2020 passed in M.A.No.10 of 2017 by the Court of VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Respondent herein has filed O.S.No.541 of 2016 before the Jurisdictional civil Court, Bangalore, Rural District, Bangalore seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. The contesting defendants have filed written statement opposing the suit claim. I.A.No.I was filed in the said suit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the respondent herein, which was opposed by the contesting defendants and the written statement filed by them was adopted as objections to I.A.No.I. The trial Court, vide the order dated 03.01.2017, rejected I.A.No.I filed on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.541 of 2016 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020 and challenging the said order, the plaintiffs had approached the appellate Court in M.A.No.10 of 2017, which was allowed on 06.06.2020. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had earlier filed O.S.No.1564 of 2012 before the jurisdictional Civil Court, Bangalore District seeking partition and separate possession of the joint property and respondent herein is defendant no.2 in the said suit. The respondent is the direct brother of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein. The trial Court having appreciated that no injunction can be granted against the co-owner of the property has rightly rejected I.A.No.I. The appellate Court having failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter has erred in allowing the miscellaneous appeal. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff submits that defendants have executed a release deed on 19.11.2012 in favour of the respondent herein and on the strength of the said release deed, the respondent is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020 in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the respondent herein had executed gift deed in favour of defendant no.1 in O.S.No.1564 of 2012. The appellate court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly allowed the appeal. He accordingly prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who are the direct sisters of the respondent herein along with others have filed O.S.No.1564 of 2012 before the jurisdictional civil Court seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of item Nos. 1 to 6 of the suit schedule property and in the said suit, a declaration is also sought that the release deed obtained by the respondent herein is void ab initio and not binding on their share and further declaration is also sought to declare the gift deed executed by the respondent no.1 herein in favour of defendant no.1 in O.S.No.1564 of 2012, namely Smt. Ramakka as a sham document and not binding on the share of plaintiff in O.S.No.1564 of 2012. In the said suit, respondent is party defendant no.2 and he has filed his written statement. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020 7. After a lapse of 4 years from the date of institution of suit in O.S.No.1564 of 2012, a separate suit is filed by the respondent herein who is party defendant no.2 in O.S.No.1564 of 2012 and in the said suit which is filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners herein in respect of the property which is subject matter of O.S.No.1564 of 2012, an application was also filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The trial Court having appreciated that no injunction can be granted as against the co-owners of the suit schedule property had rightly rejected the said application. But the appellate Court has failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter and has erred in allowing the miscellaneous appeal filed against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.I in O.S.No.541 of 2016. 8. The respondent herein claims that he is in possession of the suit schedule property under a release deed said to have been executed by defendant nos.1 and 2 in his favour on 19.11.2012. It is relevant to note here that in O.S.No.1564 of 2012, a prayer is made by the plaintiffs who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the present suit to declare that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020 the said release deed was obtained by the respondent herein illegal. Therefore, the same is void ab initio and not binding on their share in the suit schedule property. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.I filed in O.S.No.541 of 2016. 9. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 06.06.2020 passed in M.A.No.10 of 2017 by the Court of VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District is set aside. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26