- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6950 WP No. 147971 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.147971 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. GANGAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA VALAMANNAVAR AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. GURUSIDDAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA VALAMANNAVAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE. 3. MALLAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA VALAMANNAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 4. DYAMANNA S/O. NEELAPPA VALAMANNAVAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 5. GIRIJAVVA W/O. GURUSIDDAPPA VALAMANNAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 6. MANJAVVA W/O. MALLAPPA VALAMANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 7. MAHESH S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA VALAMANNAVAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE. 8. NINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA GOKUL AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, ALL ARE R/O: NOOLVI-580028, TQ: HUBBALLI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.C.JAINAR, ADVOCATE) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.05.02 13:14:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6950 WP No. 147971 of 2020 AND: MALLAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA VALAMANNAVAR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NOOLVI-580028, TQ: HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORRI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2019 IN M.A. NO.33/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ORDER DATED 10.08.2017 IN O.S.279/2016 PASSED III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned is filed by the defendants assailing the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below, wherein, both the Courts while entertaining an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has granted injunction and thereby, defendants are restraining from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6950 WP No. 147971 of 2020 2. The respondent/plaintiff has instituted a bare suit for injunction and is seeking injunction in respect of the two suit schedule properties on the ground that there is a partition between plaintiff’s father Fakkirappa and defendants’ ancestor Neelappa. The plaintiff contend that as per the family partition, his father Fakkirappa was allotted the suit schedule properties and after the death of Fakkirappa, plaintiff is asserting that he has inherited the suit schedule properties and that he is in exclusive possession over the suit schedule properties. 3. The defendants, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and they admitted 1955 partition. However, defendants claimed that post 1955 partition, there was a inter se partition between plaintiff’s father Fakkirappa and defendants’ ancestor Neelappa. The defendants’ father Neelappa was allotted ½ share in Sy.No.66/2, which is totally measuring 3-Acres 33-Guntas, ½ share in Sy.No.278/2 (renumbered as R.S.No.533) totally measuring 1-Acres 17-Guntas and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6950 WP No. 147971 of 2020 ½ share in Sy.No.294/4 (renumbered as R.S.No.581) measuring 1-Acres 3-Guntas. Therefore, the defendants at Para-3 of the written statement claimed that he has ½ share in the present suit schedule properties bearing R.S.No.533 and 581. 4. However, plaintiff has filed the present suit asserting that in the family partition, his father Fakkirappa was allotted entire extent in Sy.No.533 measuring 2-Acres 35-Guntas and Sy.No.581 measuring 1-Acre 3-Guntas. The Trial Court and Appellate Court by virtually misreading the pleadings and records, has proceeded on an assumption that defendants have admitted 1955 partition that was effected between plaintiff’s father Fakkirappa and defendants ancestor Neelappa and has proceeded to grant injunction in respect of present suit schedule properties. The entire approach adopted by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, is fundamentally fraud and the prima- facie materials are not properly examined. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6950 WP No. 147971 of 2020 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners/defendants and learned counsel appearing for respondent/plaintiff. 6. Before this Court delve into the matter, this Court deems it fit to cull out the admitted family tree, which is as under: Faikkrappa Basavanneppa Mallappa Mahadevappa Fakkirappa Neelappa Mallappa 1.Gangappa, (Plff/Resp) 2. Gurusiddappa, 3. Mallappa 4. Dyamanna (Appellants No.1 to 4) 7. One Fakkirappa is shown to be the propositus, who had two sons namely Basavanneppa and Mallappa. On closure examination of the prima-facie materials, it is forthcoming that there was a partition between the branch of Basavanneppa and Mallappa. The plaintiff and defendants represent the branch of Mallappa, while plaintiff is the legal heir of Fakkirappa and defendants are - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6950 WP No. 147971 of 2020 the legal heirs of Neelappa. In 1955 partition, which was effected between Basavanneppa and Mallappa branch, the suit schedule properties were allotted to the Mallappa’s branch represented by Fakkirappa. In all, four properties were allotted to the plaintiff’s father Fakkirappa on behalf of Mallappa’s branch. 8. The 1955 partition is evidenced from prima- facie material produced along with memo dated 20.04.2021. The M.E.No.1891 clearly shows that the suit schedule properties along with other two properties namely R.S.Nos.66/2 and 99/1+3A were allotted to Fakkirappa i.e., plaintiff’s father while remaining 4 properties were allotted to the branch of one Basavanneppa, which is indicated in the family tree supra. Therefore, the plaintiff’s assertion that there is a partition between the plaintiff’s father Fakkirappa and defendants’ ancestor Neelappa, is vaguely pleaded at Para-4 of the plaint. The Trial Court by misreading the partition of 1955, has proceeded to grant injunction. There is a one more - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6950 WP No. 147971 of 2020 crucial document, which is the mutation effected in the year 1959 under M.E.No.2040. The plaintiff’s father Fakkirappa at undisputed point of time, has given a declaration that he has got ½ share in R.S.Nos.66/2, 99/1+3A and 278/2, which is renumbered as R.S.No.533 and this property is item No.1 in schedule ‘A’. 9. Upon a detailed examination of the documents placed on record, in conjunction with the pleadings , particularly the averments set out in paragraph 4 of the plaint , it is evident that the plaintiff’s case is beset with considerable ambiguity. Paragraph 4 fails to set out any clear or specific narrative concerning the alleged partition between the plaintiff’s father, Fakkirappa, and the defendants’ father, Neelappa. In the absence of such material particulars, this Court finds that the injunction granted by the Trial Court, and subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Court, suffers from serious legal infirmities and perversity. The omission to plead or establish the details of partition between the immediate predecessors of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6950 WP No. 147971 of 2020 the plaintiff and defendants fatally undermines the plaintiff’s claim to an exclusive right over the suit schedule properties, thereby disentitling him to the discretionary relief of injunction at this stage. 10. Further, the plaintiff has not placed on record any cogent material evidencing the partition between Fakkirappa and Neelappa after the partition of 1955. The material on record rather indicates that the partition which took place in the year 1955 was between two different branches of the family, namely, Basavanneppa and Mallappa, and not between the plaintiff’s father and defendants’ father. Therefore, the core dispute as to whether there was a subsequent partition post-1955 involving Fakkirappa and Neelappa and whether the suit schedule properties were specifically allotted to the share of the plaintiff’s father, remains a disputed fact that requires adjudication through a full-fledged trial. Until such determination is made, the plaintiff’s claim to exclusive - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6950 WP No. 147971 of 2020 possession over the entire extent of the suit schedule properties remains unsubstantiated. 11. Significantly, it is observed that during the course of arguments, the plaintiff’s learned counsel contended that the plaintiff’s father had been allotted a ½ (half) share in the suit schedule properties. Despite this, the plaintiff has sought an injunction over the entire extent of land bearing R.S. Nos. 533 and 581, without demarcating the specific share or portion allegedly allotted to him. Such an approach further depicts the lack of clarity in the plaintiff’s case. The interim injunction orders passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, therefore, stand vitiated by a manifest perversity, being contrary to the prima-facie material brought on record by both sides. The pleadings are riddled with inconsistencies and lack of specificity regarding the partition and allotment of the suit properties, necessitating that the plaintiff be relegated to prove his claims in a full-fledged trial. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6950 WP No. 147971 of 2020 that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima-facie case warranting the grant of an interim injunction. Consequently, finding the impugned orders to be legally unsustainable, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDERS i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 10.08.2017 passed on I.A.No.I & II in O.S.No.279/2016 by learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Hubballi and confirmed in M.A.No.33/2017 dated 18.10.2019 by learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hubballi, are hereby quashed and set-aside. iii) Registry is hereby directed to forthwith remit the trial Court records to enable the trial Court to proceed with the case. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AM/ALB Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10