- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5478 WP No. 100821 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 100821 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VADDARA HULUGAPPA S/O. LATE SANNA DURUGAPPA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. VADDRA AMBANNA S/O. LATE SANNA DURUGAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, BOTH ARE R/O: KONDANAYAKANAHALLI, NOW AT BUKKASAGARA, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583 201. … PETITIONERS (BY MISS. RANJITA.G.ALAGAWADI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583 201. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583 201. 3. SRI. KUMBAR RANGAPPA S/O. LATE RAMAPPA, AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 5TH WARD, STATION ROAD, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583 201. 4. SMT. KALPANA W/O. SRINIVAS RAO, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5478 WP No. 100821 of 2025 R/O: S.R. NAGAR, CHAPPARADAHALLI, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583 201. 5. SRI. KATTE NAGARAJA S/O. LATE VENUGOPAL SETTY, AGE ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 3RD WARD, PATEL NAGARA, OPP. TO TALUKA OFFICE, SRIDEVI NILAYA, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583 201. 6. SRI. SRIKANTH S/O. KATTE NAGARA, AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 3RD WARD, PATEL NAGARA, OPP. TO TALUKA OFFICE, SRIDEVI NILAYA, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583 201. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B.BHUTE, AGA FOR R1-R2; SRI. HARSHA DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R5-R6; R3 TO R4-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Ms.Ranjita G.Alagawai., counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Mala B.Bhute., AGA for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Harsh Desai., counsel for respondents 5 and 6 have appeared in person. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5478 WP No. 100821 of 2025 2. The caption Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hosapete on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.303/2023 vide Annexure-D and the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hosapete in M.A.No.11/2023 vide Annexure-F and consequently allow the I.A.No.2. 3. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The short facts are these: The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants filed written statement and resisted the suit claim. The plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w. Section 151 of CPC and prayed for an interim relief of temporary injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the application. On appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5478 WP No. 100821 of 2025 5. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of an application seeking an interim relief of temporary injunction. As could be seen from the lis between the parties, the suit is one for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiffs contended that they are in possession of the suit scheduled property as the legal heirs of one Vaddara Kariyappa as of the date of filing of the suit. However, they have failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief of temporary injunction. It would be relevant to observe that the plaintiffs are required to prove their 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 plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie case. The Trial Court also concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the possession as of the date of the filing of the suit to grant the interim relief of temporary injunction. The right to injunction is based on a prima facie right. The plaintiffs claiming the relief of injunction must establish the breach of an obligation or infringement of a legal right. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5478 WP No. 100821 of 2025 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 Courts concurrently arrived at a finding of fact based on the material evidence on record. Needless to say, the grant of interim relief of temporary injunction is discretionary in nature. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court exercised the discretionary powers from the right perspective. 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. A gentle reminder is issued to the Trial court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH,MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 12