- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 104098 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAGARAJ S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA GANGALER, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANGOLLI ONI, MASUR VILLAGE, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI-581210. 2. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. MUDABASAPPA GANGALER, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANGOLLI ONI, MASUR VILLAGE, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI-581210. 3. SRI. LOKAPPA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA GANGALER, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANGOLLI ONI, MASUR VILLAGE, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI-581210. 4. SRI. KIRAN S/O. GANGAPPA DODDABASAPPANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SARVAJNA PLOT, MASUR VILLAGE, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI-581210. 5. SUNITHA C/O. SHANKARGOUDA JOGIHALLI @ CHANNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. THIPPAYIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI-581210. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATHISH M.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.28 10:53:24 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 AND: SRI. BASANAGOUDA S/O. SHAMBHUGOUDA JOGIHALLI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MASUR VILLAGE, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI-581210. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINAND A.PACHCHAPURE AND SRI. RAJENDRA R.PATIL, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR NECESSARY WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED IN M.A.NO.14/2023, DATED 25-04-2024 PASSED BY HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JFC, HIREKERUR AS MARKED AT VIDE ANNEXURE-H; CONSEQUENTLY, UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A. NO. 1, DATED 12-10-2023 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 223/2023 BY HON BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The defendants No.1 to 5 in O.S. No.223/2023 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’, for short) have filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’, for short) in M.A.No.14/2023 by which, it allowed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 the appeal and granted injunction and restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The suit in O.S.No.223/2023 was filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was 12¾ guntas of land in Sy.No.67/2 of Veerapur, Hirekerur Hobli, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District. The plaintiff claimed that he was the owner of the suit schedule property which he succeeded from his forefathers. He contended that the defendant No.1 had purchased 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.67/1 in terms of a sale deed dated 07.06.2022. He contended that the property identified by the letters ‘ABCD’ forming part of Sy.No.67/2 was not in possession of the defendant No.1 but was in his possession. He claimed that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 the defendants were trying to interfere with his possession and hence sought for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession in the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, he filed an application for interim injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his possession in the suit schedule property. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants who claimed that they were the lawful owners of the land bearing Sy.No.67/1, they having purchased it in terms of a lawful deed from its lawful owner. They claimed that the plaintiff had encroached into the 12¾th guntas in Sy.No.67/1 and therefore they had initiated proceedings before the Surveyor for fixation of the boundaries of the property purchased by them. They contended that the Surveyor had conducted a survey and had given his report stating that the plaintiff had encroached into 12¾th guntas of land in Sy.No.67/1. They contended that after the report was submitted, the plaintiff had filed the instant suit for perpetual injunction. They therefore contended that the plaintiff did not have any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property but was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 claiming title in respect of portion of land bearing Sy.No.67/1 which was lawfully purchased by the defendant No.1. They resisted the application for interim injunction on similar grounds. 5. The trial Court after considering the contentions of both the parties held that Sy.Nos.67/1 and 67/2 were neighbouring properties, it held that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case that he was in possession of the suit schedule property. It also held that the entries in revenue records did not result in a presumption that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property. It held that since the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were claiming that they were in possession of the suit schedule property, granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff may cause hardship to the defendant No.1. Therefore, it rejected the application filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed M.A.No.14/2023 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal in terms of the order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024 on the ground that it was prima facie evident that there was 24 guntas of land in Sy.No.67/2 and that the defendant No.1 in his written arguments had stated that the plaintiff and his brother were in cultivation of 24 guntas of land. It therefore held that prima facie the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. Consequently, it allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial Court and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants are before this Court in this writ petition. 8. Sri.Sathish M.S., learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff rushed to the Court after the Surveyor conducted a survey of land bearing Sy.No.67/1 and gave a report that the plaintiff had encroached into the portion of Sy.No.67/1. He therefore contends that in the light of the report of the Surveyor, the plaintiff was in possession of Sy.No.67/1 and not Sy.No.67/2. He therefore contends that the trial Court was justified in refusing to grant an order of injunction. He - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 contends that the Appellate Court allowed the appeal based on assumptions and presumptions. He further contends that the plaintiff did not produce any material to establish his better title than the defendants and therefore was not entitled for an order of injunction. Besides this, he contends that when the plaintiff and the defendants are claiming title to adjoining properties and when the defendants allege that the plaintiff had encroached into a property belonging to them, Courts must be slow in granting injunction as any order in favour of the plaintiff would affect the defendants seriously. He contends that in matters of this nature, the appellate Court more particularly in the light of the Surveyor’s report must had appointed a Commissioner for the limited purpose of identifying the limits of Sy.No.67/1 and Sy.No.67/2 and thereafter must have considered the application for grant of injunction. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of Sy.No.67/2 and the same is evident from the revenue records. He therefore contends that when the defendants are not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 claiming title to Sy.No.67/2 and when the defendants have admitted the title of the plaintiff to Sy.No.67/2, there is no error in the Appellate Court granting an order of injunction. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendants and the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 11. The plaintiff has attached to a sketch to the plaint wherein, he has described the suit schedule property by the letters ‘ABCD’. According to the plaintiff, the portion of the land identified in letters ‘AEFC’ is the land bearing Sy.No.67/1 and the portion identified by the letters ‘BDH’ is also portion of Sy.No.67/2. If that be so, it is clear that the plaintiff is claiming the portion identified by letters ‘ABCD’ as a portion of Sy.No.67/2, the defendant No.1 is claiming that it is a portion of Sy.No.67/1. Therefore, the dispute essentially revolves around the question whether the portion marked by the letters ‘ABCD’ forms part of Sy.No.67/1 or - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 Sy.No.67/2. A perusal of the plaint discloses that the plaintiff claimed the land bearing Sy.No.67/2, and contended that he succeeded to Sy.No.67/2 from his ancestors. If that be so, granting an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff would definitely cause hardship and injury to the defendant No.1, if the plaintiff is in possession of portion of Sy.No.67/1. Therefore, though the Appellate Court was right in granting injunction since the defendant No.1 admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of 24 guntas of land in Sy.No.67/2, it must have reserved the right to the trial Court to reconsider the order of injunction after a Commissioner is appointed to identify the limits of Sy.Nos.67/1 and 67/2. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Appellate Court deserves to be tempered with conditions. Consequently, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Appellate Court in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 M.A.No.14/2023 is up held. However, if an application is filed by the plaintiff for appointment of a revenue surveyor as a Commissioner to identify the boundaries of Sy.Nos.67/1 and 67/2, the trial Court may consider it favourably. Liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to seek modification of the order of interim injunction granted in MA No.14/2023 based on the report of the Commissioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case based on the evidence adduced before it. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE RH Ct:vh List No.: 38 Sl No.: 6 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8718 WP No. 104098 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [SRI NAGARAJ S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA GANGALER AND OTHERS VS. SRI BASANAGOUDA S/O. SHAMBHUGOUDA JOGIHALLI,] 25.07.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER on “Being Spoken To” This petition is moved today for correction of the order dated 14.07.2025. It is stated that in line No.2 and line No.7 at page No.10 instead of mentioning the word “defendants”, it is wrongly mentioned as ‘plaintiff’. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the word ‘plaintiff’ wrongly appears in line No.2 and line No.7 at page 10 of the order dated 14.07.2025. In view of the above, the word ‘plaintiff’ appearing in line No.2 and line 7 at page No.10 of the order dated 14.07.2025 shall be read as “defendants”. This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 14.07.2025. Sd/- ( R.NATARAJ) JUDGE KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3