- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.223678 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. ANJANA @ ASHA PAGA W/O. ALLEGED PRANESH PAGA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O.1-211C, STATION BAZAR, KALABURAGI-585201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. S. SIDHAPURKER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2) SMT. TIPPAWWA W/O. NIJAGAPPA, DIED HIS LRS., SMT. MALLAWWA W/O. AMBLAPPA. AGED ABOUT:56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOGI(K), SHAHAPUR TALUKA, DIST:YADGIR-585201. 3) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. BHIMAPPA HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT:59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANALLI, TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST:YADGIR-585201. 4) SMT. KAREMME W/O. GURUBASSAPPA AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.GOGI (K) TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST:YADGIRI-585201. Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 5) SMT. SABAWWA W/O.BABU AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.GOGI (K) TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST:YADGIRI-585201. 6) SMT. YALLAMMA W/O.CHANDAPPA AGED ABOUT:46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOGI (K) VILLAGE, SHAHAPUR TALUKA, DIST:YADGIR-585201. 7) SMT. CHANDAVVA W/O. TAYAPPA AGED ABOUT:48 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. SINGANALLI, TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST:YADGIR-585201. 8) SMT. LAKSHIBAYI W/O. MAEPPA AGED ABOUT:56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOGI(K) VILLAGE, SHAHAPUR TALUKA, DIST:YADGIR-585201. 9) SMT. DEVAMMA W/O. CHANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT:54 YEARS,OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOGI (K) VILLAGE, SHAHAPUR TALUKA, DIST:YADGIR-585201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJESH G. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7; R8 AND R9 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23- 01-2020 PASSED IN M.A. NO. 7 OF 2019 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHAHAPUR, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 ORAL ORDER The plaintiff in O.S No.193/2016 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge, Shahapur, is before this Court challenging an order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur in M.A No.7/2019, by which it allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of interim injunction dated 07.09.2019, passed by the Principal Civil Judge, shahapur in O.S NO.193/2016. 2.(i). The suit in O.S No.193/2016 was filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the land bearing Sy No.105 of Kodamnahalli, Gogi hobli, Shahapur Taluk, Yadgir District, measuring 31 acres 15 guntas. The plaintiff claimed that she is the wife of Pranesh Paga and that he owned the suit property. After his death on 22.01.1998, she inherited the suit property and was in possession without any interference. The Plaintiff claimed that defendants with malafide intention interfered with her possession and threatened to oust her from the suit property. The plaintiff therefore sought for perpetual injunction to protect her possession in the suit property against - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 unlawful interference by the defendants. She also filed an application for interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. (ii). The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.7 to 14, who claimed that they were the owners in possession and cultivation of the land to the extent allotted to them by the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC & ST Corporation'). They claimed that SC & ST Corporation had purchased suit land from Smt. Asha, the first wife of late Pranesh Paga. They denied that the plaintiff was related to Pranesh Paga, but she was wrongly claiming to be the wife of Pranesh Paga. They also contended that certain loan was granted to them by the state government, on the security of the property granted to them which was later waived. They therefore claimed that their possession was not unlawful as claimed by the plaintiff and hence, no injunction could be granted to the plaintiff. The application for interim injunction was also contested on similar lines. 3. The Trial Court, after considering the contentions, granted an order of interim injunction since the defendants failed to produce any documents to establish that the wife of Pranesh Paga had conveyed the suit property to SC & ST - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 Corporation and that they were allotted the lands by the said corporation. It was therefore held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and consequently granted an order of injunction in terms of the order dated 07.09.2019. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant Nos.7 to 14 filed an appeal in M.A. No.7/2019 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court secured the records from the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff placed on record a judgment and decree passed in O.S No.275/2019, filed by her against the Tahsildar for a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of Pranesh Paga. The court also noticed that another person named Anjana claiming to be the wife of Pranesh Paga had filed O.S. No. 162/1999, in respect of certain investments made by Pranesh Paga in a Post Office account and a national savings certificate and a house property and that the said suit was decreed only in respect of the investments of the said Pranesh Paga. An appeal was filed by plaintiffs and defendant in O.S No. 162/1999 in R.A No. 12/2007 and R.A No. 15/2007 against the decree in O.S No. 162/1999. The Appellate Court perused the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.275/2019 and held that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 the plaintiff in O.S No. 275/2019 did not mention anywhere that she was a resident of Kodamnahalli of Shahapur Taluk. It also noticed that the plaintiff in O.S No. 275/2019 did not array the plaintiffs in O.S No.162/1999 as parties in O.S No.275/2019. It therefore held that the conduct of the plaintiff in O.S No. 275/2019 disentitled her for any discretionary relief of injunction. It also held that the status of the plaintiff with Pranesh Paga was in dispute which was seized before this Court in RSA No.200095/2018 and 200096/2018. Therefore it held that there was no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff for grant of interim injunction. Consequently it allowed the appeal in terms of the order dated 23.01.2020 and set aside the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff is before this court in this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as the wife of Pranesh Paga. He contends that the defendants claimed that the wife of Pranesh Paga had conveyed the suit property to SC ST Corporation and that the defendants were all allotees from the SC ST Corporation. He contends that not a scrap of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 paper was produced before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court to establish the said fact. Therefore he contends that the defendants do not have any manner of right, title or interest and hence, the Appellate Court must have confirmed the order of interim injunction granted by the Trial Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant Nos.7 to 14 submits that another person claiming to be the wife of Pranesh Paga had filed O.S No.162/1999, in respect of the investments of Pranesh Paga and a house property and that the said suit was decreed in part in respect of the investments. He contends that this judgment and decree was challenged in regular appeals by both plaintiff and the defendants in O.S No.162/1999, which were disposed off and same are challenged before this court in the Regular Second Appeals mentioned above. He therefore contends that question whether the plaintiff is the wife of Pranesh Paga is in dispute and hence, until the said question is adjudicated upon the plaintiff cannot claim any title in respect of the suit schedule property. Besides this, he contends that the wife of Pranesh Paga had conveyed the suit property to the SC ST corporation for consideration and that the corporation had in turn allotted the portions of the suit - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 property to the defendants and that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. Thus he contends that the Appellate court was justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court and dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff. 7. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.7 to 14. 8. The records enclosed with the writ petition show that there were three suits filed, one by a person named Smt. Asha wife of Pranesh Paga and her daughter Kum. Shruthi against Anjana for declaration of their title, recovery of possession of the suit property and for a declaration that they are entitled to the maturity value of the National Savings Certificate, mesne profits and costs. The said suit was decreed in part in so far as it related to the claim of the plaintiffs for the maturity value of NSC certificate and the amount lying in fixed deposit of deceased Pranesh Paga. Appeals were filed by Smt. Asha and Anjana in R.A No. 12/2007 and R.A No. 15/2007. The appeal filed by plaintiffs in RA No. 12/2007 was allowed and suit in O.S No. 162/1999 was decreed in full. The defendant - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 challenged it before this Court in RSA No. 200095/2018 and RSA No. 200096/2018. 9. Later, a suit was filed by the plaintiff herein in O.S No.275/2019, claiming to be the wife of the deceased Pranesh Paga, against the State Government and Tahsildar. The Tahsildar did not contest the suit though one of the reliefs sought for in the suit was a direction to the Tahsildar to make necessary entries in Column Nos.5 and 7 of the revenue records relating to the suit property. The said suit was decreed and it was declared that the plaintiff was the wife of deceased Pranesh Paga. However, the plaintiff in O.S No.275/2019 did not file the suit against the plaintiffs in O.S No.162/ 1999. The plaintiff has now filed the present suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property claiming to have inherited it from deceased Pranesh Paga. 10. Therefore, the question whether the plaintiff is the wife of Pranesh Paga is still not decided and therefore she cannot contend that she has inherited the suit property as the wife of Pranesh Paga. The Trial Court, without considering this fundamental question has proceeded on the assumption that the defendants did not produce any documents to show that - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 the wife of Pranesh Paga conveyed it to the SC ST corporation. The Trial Court must have noticed that the initial burden was upon the plaintiff to prove that she had a prima facie case for grant of injunction. Since the facts are still hazy, it was not appropriate to grant an order of injunction and arm the plaintiff with an order to dispossess the defendants, if they are in possession of the suit property. Thus, it is appropriate to maintain status quo of the suit property pending disposal of the suit, meaning thereby that neither of them shall change the nature of the property nor encumber the suit property in any manner whatsoever or place any other third party in possession of the suit property. 11. In view of the above this writ petition is disposed off on the following terms: i) This Writ petition is allowed in part; ii) The impugned order passed by the Appellate Court in MA No.7/2019 is modified and the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court in O.S No.193/2016 is also modified and both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1213 WP No. 223678 of 2020 iii) Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants shall change the nature of the property nor alienate or encumber or transfer the property in any manner whatsoever and shall not place or induct any third party into the suit schedule property until the disposal of the suit. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT:SI