- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6427 WP No. 110053 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 110053 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. AALOORU NAGARAJ S/O. A. HALAPPA, AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HIREHEGGADALU VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI. 2. AALOORU KOTRESHA S/O. A. HALAPPA, AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HIREHEGGADALU VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JYOTHI BASAVARAJA S/O. PAMPANNA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S 1A. SHRI. KODI BASAPPA B.G., S/O. LATE JYOTHI BASAVARAJA , AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST. 1B. SMT. B. PALLAVI W/O. SHIVARAJ B.G., AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.19 10:41:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6427 WP No. 110053 of 2017 1C. KUMARI GAYATRI D/O. LATE SHIVARAJ B.G., AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 1D. KUMAR G.S. SHIVAMANI, ADOPTED S/O. LATE SHIVARAJ B.G., AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O: HIREHEGGADALU VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R1 (A AND B) (NOTICE TO R1(C) AND R1(D) ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AN ORDER PASSED IN MISC.APPEAL NO.02/2017 DATED 21.09.2017 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND FURTHER MAY KINDLY CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI ON I.A.NO.I (MENTIONED AS I.A.NO.II IN ORDER PORTION) DATED 11.08.2017 IN O.S.NO.31/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F 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: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6427 WP No. 110053 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This petition is by the plaintiffs assailing the order of the appellate Court in reversing the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Questioning the order of the appellate Court passed in M.A.No.2/2017, this captioned petition is filed. 2. The present petitioners have filed the suit in O.S.No.31/2015 seeking relief of declaration and for consequential relief of injunction based on a registered Sale Deed dated 09.12.2013 executed by one Sri H.N.Gurubasappa S/o. Late Sri H.N.Gooleppa. The sole- defendant, on receipt of summons tendered appearance and has filed written statement and set up independent title through one Sri H.N.Pathreppa. The sole defendant contended that said Sri H.N.Pathreppa has orally sold the property on 02.06.1985 by receiving Rs.1,00,000/- as sale consideration and has subsequently executed an unregistered Sale Deed dated 21.05.2009. The trial Court while deciding the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6427 WP No. 110053 of 2017 and 2 of CPC held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in making out a prima facie case. The trial Court was also of the view that the balance of convenience leans in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore to prevent irreparable loss to plaintiffs exercised judicial discretion, and granted interim injunction. 3. The appellate Court however has reversed the order of injunction granted by the trial Court on the premises that the registered Sale Deed obtained by the plaintiffs on 09.12.2013 does not constitute a prima facie material in regard to the possession. The appellate Court was of the view that mere production of a Sale Deed will not absolve the plaintiffs’ duty to prove the same in accordance with law. The appellate Court was of the view that the rebuttal evidence was not looked before granting injunction in favour of plaintiffs. Consequently, the appellate Court has allowed the appeal and order of injunction is reversed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiffs and counsel appearing for legal heirs of sole defendant. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6427 WP No. 110053 of 2017 5. Perused the divergent orders passed by the Courts below. On deeper examination of the order of the appellate Court, which is impugned in the captioned petition, this Court is more than satisfied that the order passed by the appellate Court suffers from perversity and serious infirmities. The appellate Court has exceeded in his jurisdiction while reversing the order of injunction. The observations made by the appellate Court at paragraph Nos.19 and 20 also run contrary to the mandate provided under Order 43 of CPC. The plaintiffs while seeking injunction have placed reliance on a registered Sale Deed dated 09.12.2013. Record of rights are also produced by plaintiffs to demonstrate that their vendor namely Sri H.N.Gurubasappa was allotted 17.15 cents in a family partition. Plaintiffs’ vendor namely Sri H.N.Gurubasappa is duly reflected in revenue records. Defendant is asserting title based on an oral Sale Deed dated 02.06.1985 and an unregistered Sale Deed dated 21.05.2009, while plaintiffs are ascertaining title and possession based on a registered Sale Deed dated 09.12.2013. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6427 WP No. 110053 of 2017 6. In view of the substantial and significant prima facie materials placed on record by the plaintiffs, particularly the registered Sale Deed which evidences their title and is prima facie supported by a prior partition in the vendor's family, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellate Court has grossly failed to appreciate the reasoning adopted by the trial Court in granting the interim injunction. The trial Court, after a detailed consideration of the prima facie evidence, rightly found that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case warranting protection of possession through interim relief. However, the appellate Court, in reversing this well-reasoned order, has not only failed to engage with or assign cogent reasons for disregarding the plaintiffs' title documents but has also erroneously placed undue reliance on the unsubstantiated rebuttal advanced by the defendant, who has not yet established any credible source of title or lawful possession. 7. The findings of the appellate Court defy judicial logic and fly in the face of the settled legal position consistently affirmed by this Court in a catena of judgments, which - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6427 WP No. 110053 of 2017 emphasises the sanctity and evidentiary value of a registered Sale Deed in establishing prima facie ownership. The appellate Court, exercising jurisdiction under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is required to operate within a limited scope, interfering only where the order of the trial Court is found to be perverse or legally unsustainable. In the present case, no such perversity is evident in the well- reasoned order of the trial Court. On the contrary, the order of the appellate Court reveals a misappreciation of the factual and legal matrix and a complete omission to assess the legal implications of the plaintiffs’ documentary title. 8. The assertion by the appellate Court that there exists rebuttal evidence from the defendant and plaintiffs’ title which is based on registered sale deed needs adjudication is not only premature but also perverse, especially in the absence of any substantive evidence demonstrating how the defendant came into possession allegedly in the year 1985. Such issues squarely fall within the realm of trial and cannot form the basis for denial of interim relief, especially when the plaintiffs’ documentary - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6427 WP No. 110053 of 2017 evidence stands unrebutted at this stage. Without making any conclusive observations on the merits of the case, this Court is constrained to hold that the impugned order of the appellate Court suffers from manifest perversity and legal infirmity. Consequently, it is liable to be set aside. The discretion exercised by the trial Court in granting interim injunction was legally sound and based on a proper appreciation of the materials on record. The appellate Court erred in interfering with such discretion, and its order does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. For the forgoing reasons, this Court passes the following : ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi in Miscellaneous Appeal No.02/2017 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order of learned - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6427 WP No. 110053 of 2017 trial Judge dated 11.08.2017 passed on I.A. No.I in O.S.No.31/2015 is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CKK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4