- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4614 WP No. 101010 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 101010 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. NASIMABANU W/O SAYED MULLA, AGED. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HOUSE NO.5224/16, MULLA COLONY, MAIGUR, JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH.A.YADAWAD AND SRI. RAHUL.S.KUNTOJI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAYED S/O GULABSAB MULLA, AGED. 65 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER, R/O. HOUSE NO.5224/16, MULLA COLONY, MAIGUR, JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. 2. SMT. MEHABUBBI @ MUNEERA W/O BASHEERAHMED KARNAL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUSTAFA COLONY, DHANVANTRI HOSPITAL BACK SIDE, VIJAYAPUR, DIST: VIJYAPUR-586 101. 3. KASHIMSAB S/O GULABSAB MULLA, AGED: 71 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O: TODALBAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST : BAGALKOT-587 330. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4614 WP No. 101010 of 2025 4. ABDELI S/O GULABSAB MULLA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: ASST. ENGINEER, PWD DEPT., R/O: PWD QUARTERS, IB ROAD, ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI -591 304. 5. GOUSAB S/O GULABSAB MULLA, AGED: 51 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O: TODALBAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST : BAGALKOT-587 330. 6. HAJISAB S/O GULABSAB MULLA, AGED: 50 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O: TODALBAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST : BAGALKOT-587 330. 7. BANDENAWAJ S/O GULABSAB MULLA, AGED: 48 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O: TODALBAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST : BAGALKOT-587 330. 8. SMT. MAMATAJ W/O HUSAINSAB AWATI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MOMIN GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-57 301. 9. RASULA @ RASHIDABANU W/O BADESAB MULLA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KUMBAR GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 301. 10. SMT. MALANABI W/O SALEEM MULLA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KANABUR, TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101. 11. SMT. ZUBEDABI W/O AINUDDIN AFRAJ, AGED: 53 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TODALBAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST : BAGALKOT-587 330. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4614 WP No. 101010 of 2025 12. SMT. BISAMILLA W/O FAKIRSAB JAMADAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TELSANG, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 265. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Girish A.Yadawad., and Sri.Rahul S.Kuntoji., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. 2. The caption Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Jamkhandi on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.151/2023 vide Annexure-H and the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot to sitting at Jamkhandi in M.A.No.5004/2024 vide Annexure-J and consequently allow the I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4614 WP No. 101010 of 2025 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction contending that the defendants 3 to 7 tried to interfere and dispossess with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property illegally. She filed an interim application for an injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with 151 of CPC. The Trial Court vide order dated 05.02.2024 rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, she filed an appeal before the Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No.5004/2024. The Appellate Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 rejected the appeal. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are erroneous and both the Courts failed to appreciate the material on record from the proper perspective. Next, he submits that the plaintiff’s husband was the absolute owner of the suit property and he had gifted the same to her on 11.05.1995 and the same was within the knowledge of defendants 3 to 7. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4614 WP No. 101010 of 2025 A further submission is made under the guise of the alleged compromise, defendants tried to interfere and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. It is also submitted that defendants 3 to 7 entered into a compromise without the petitioner's knowledge. Counsel vehemently contended that oral gift is recognized under the Mohammedan Law. However, both the Courts overlooked this aspect of the matter and rejected the application. Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the orders are untenable and hence the writ petition may be allowed. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of a temporary injunction application. As could be seen from the lis between the parties, the suit one for declaration and consequential relief of injunction based on the oral gift. The plaintiff contended that she had grown - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4614 WP No. 101010 of 2025 sugarcane crops on the scheduled land defendants 3 to 7 illegally entered her land and cut the sugarcane. It would be relevant to observe that the plaintiff is required to prove his or her lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as of the date of filing of the suit. Based on material proof, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case as there was a dispute in respect of title and possession. The Trial Court also concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish the possession as of the date of the filing of the suit to grant the relief of temporary injunction. 5. The right to injunction is based on a prima facie right. The plaintiff claiming the relief of injunction must establish the breach of an obligation or infringement of a legal right. The Appellate Court has examined the evidence on record and re-appraised it. I am satisfied that it has been appreciated from the correct perspective. Further the findings by the court of facts are neither vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence nor there is an erroneous approach to the matter. I do not find any error in the finding of facts. Furthermore, both the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4614 WP No. 101010 of 2025 Courts concurrently arrived at a finding of fact based on the material evidence on record. Under such circumstances, the High Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot reverse the concurrent findings under ordinary circumstances. Hence, I decline to interfere with the orders. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9