- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6929 WP No. 19465 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.19465 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: ONKARAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O MANDLUR VILLAGE – 577 556 DAVANGERE TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA M N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B. M. GOVINDAPPA S/O. MAHESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O MELLEKATTE VILLAGE– 577 512, DAVANGERE TALUK. 2. SMT. H.R. NAGARATNA W/O B.M. GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS HOUSEHOLD R/O MELLEKATTE VILLAGE– 577 512, DAVANGERE TALUK. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 20.08.2019 PASSED ON IA.NO.1 IN OS.NO.112/19 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE AND Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6929 WP No. 19465 of 2024 ORDER DTD 18.11.23 PASSED IN MA.NO.30/2019 BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DAVANAGERE AT DAVANAGERE AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND K AND DISMISS THE IA NO.I FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENTS IN OS NO. 112/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The defendant in O.S.No.112/2019 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge at Davanagere is before this Court challenging the correctness of the order dated 20.08.2019, by which, the trial Court granted interim injunction and restrained the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property. The defendant is also aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2023 passed in MA.No.30/2019, by which, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of interim injunction. 2. The suit in O.S.No.112/2019 was filed for permanent injunction in respect of an agricultural land bearing Survey No.17/3A of Mandaluru Village, Anagodu Hobli, Davanagere Taluk. The plaintiffs claimed that the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6929 WP No. 19465 of 2024 defendant was the owner of the suit properties and that he for lawful consideration conveyed the same in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of two sale deeds dated 15.09.2017 and 15.02.2018. They claimed that from the date of sale deeds, they were in possession of the suit properties and that the defendant was trying to interfere with their possession. 3. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that his wife and mother of plaintiff No.2 were sisters. He claimed that after the death of his wife, the father of plaintiff No.2 took him to his village, where he took the signatures of defendant on some documents assuring that he would arrange for the livelihood of the defendant. He claimed that when he affixed the signature to the documents neither the plaintiff nor brother of plaintiff No.1 read over the contents of the document. He contended that he was misled by the representations made by the father of plaintiff No.2. He also claimed that he initiated proceedings before the concerned Officer - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6929 WP No. 19465 of 2024 under Section 22(2) of the Maintenance of Senior Citizen and Welfare of Parents Act, 2007, for cancellation of sale deeds. He claimed that he was in possession of the suit property and therefore, no injunction could be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. 4. An application was filed by the plaintiffs for interim injunction contending that the defendant was trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property. The application for injunction was also contested by the defendant. 5. The trial Court after noticing the case and counter case, held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction, more particularly, the defendant had not disputed the execution of the sale deeds, though, he claimed that he was compelled to execute the sale deeds and that the plaintiffs had misrepresented the purpose, for which, the document was obtained. The trial Court therefore held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie triable case and thus, granted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6929 WP No. 19465 of 2024 an order of injunction. The defendant being aggrieved by the said order, preferred appeal in MA.No.30/2019 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court confirmed the order of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the defendant had obtained the affidavits of adjoining land owners who stated that the defendant was in lawful possession of the suit properties and not the plaintiff. He contends that the trial Court and the Appellate Court must have considered the said affidavits before holding that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case. 7. The plaintiffs had claimed title to the suit property in terms of two sale deeds executed by the defendant. The defendant did not dispute the execution of the sale deeds, though he contended that he was compelled and forced to execute the sale deeds as the father of plaintiff No.2 had assured to take care of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6929 WP No. 19465 of 2024 defendant. The defence of the defendant is yet to be established and in the meanwhile, the right of the plaintiff to enjoy the suit property cannot be interfered with. 8. In view of the above, the trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie triable case for grant of injunction and the Appellate Court was also justified in confirming the findings of the trial Court. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in this writ petition. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44