- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 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. 100589 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VIRUPAXAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA SAJJANAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRAHATTI, NEAR POLICE STATION, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582120. 2. SRI. SHANKAR A/F BASAVARAJ SAJJANAR, PLAINTIFFS WRONGLY SHOWN AS S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA SAJJANAR IN CAUSE TITLE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRAHATTI, NEAR POLICE STATION, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582120. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATHISH M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DRAKSHAYANI W/O. GAVISIDDAPPA SAJJANAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MAIN BAZAR ROAD, MUNDARGI, TALUK: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG-582118. Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.19 10:11:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 2. SMT. MANJULA W/O. BASAVARAJ SAJJANAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT JOB, R/O. MAIN BAZAR ROAD, MUNDARGI, TALUK: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG-582118. 3. VEERESH S/O. GAVISIDDAPPA SAJJANAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAIN BAZAR ROAD, MUNDARGI, TALUK: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG-582118. 4. SAVITA W/O. SANJAMESH SAJJANAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. MAIN BAZAR ROAD, MUNDARGI, TALUK: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG-582118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) 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 IN O.S NO.148/2022, DATED 29-09-2022 PASSED ON IA NO. II AND IIII BY HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC LAXMESHWAR SITTING AT MUDARGI AS MARKED AT VIDE ANNEXURE-G. CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE I.A NO.II AND III FILED BY RESPONDENTS IN OS NO.148/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.148/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Laxmeshwar, sitting at Mundargi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’, for short) are before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 29.09.2022, by which the trial Court allowed I.A.Nos.II and III and restrained defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties and from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. 2. The defendants are also aggrieved by the order passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’, for short) in M.A. No.12/2022 by which the order of injunction granted by the trial Court was up held. 3. The suit in O.S. No.148/2022 was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule properties and to declare that the defendants had no manner of right, title or - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 interest in the suit schedule properties and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit schedule properties fell to the share of their aunt Smt.Paravva at a partition evidenced by a document dated 17.03.2021. They claimed that Smt.Paravva died on 16.03.2022 and that they were the legal heirs of said Smt.Paravva who succeeded to the properties. They claimed that the defendant No.1 who was the brother of the said Smt.Paravva had concocted a Will and gift deed in respect of the suit schedule properties, to seem as if the same were bequeathed to defendant No.1. They alleged that the defendant No.1 had concocted an adoption deed in terms of which the defendant No.2 was allegedly adopted by the said Smt.Paravva. Therefore, they contended that the defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit schedule properties and hence, sought for reliefs mentioned above. Along with the suit, they filed two applications (I.A.Nos.II) seeking interim injunction to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 restrain the defendants from entering their names in the revenue records based on the alleged Will and gift deed and adoption and not to disturb their peaceful possession and enjoyment in the suit schedule properties. They also filed I.A. No.III for interim injunction to restrain the defendants from disturbing their peaceful possession and enjoyment in any manner whatsoever. 4. The suit was contested by defendants No.1 and 2 who admitted that Smt.Paravva was the full and absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, she having derived them at a partition dated 20.02.2021. They contended that Smt.Paravva had great love and affection towards the defendants and she voluntarily transferred the suit schedule properties in terms of a gift deed dated 27.01.2022 in favour of the defendant No.1. As such, the defendant No.1 had succeeded to the properties so bequeathed. She also executed a Will dated 27.01.2022 in favour of defendant No.1. They therefore contended that defendant No.1 had become the full and absolute owner of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 the suit schedule properties after the death of Smt.Paravva on 16.03.2022. It was also contended that Smt. Paravva desired to take defendant No.2 in adoption to continue the lineage of her husband. It was thus contended that defendant No.2 was adopted by Smt.Paravva which was evidenced by a deed of adoption dated 09.03.2022. Thus, they contended that even if the Will and the gift deed were not taken into consideration, by virtue of the adoption deed, the defendant No.2 had succeeded to the properties of Smt.Paravva and therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to any declaration of their title to the suit properties. The applications for interim injunction were also contested on similar lines. 5. The trial Court after considering the contentions of both the parties, allowed the applications in terms of the order dated 29.09.2022 and restrained the defendants from getting their names entered in the revenue records based on the documents namely the gift and Will dated 27.01.2022 and adoption deed dated 09.03.2022. It also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 restrained the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. An appeal preferred by the defendants before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.12/2022 was also dismissed in terms of the order dated 09.11.2022. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the defendants are before this Court in this writ petition. 7. Sri.Sathish M.S., learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed to the properties only if they established that Smt.Paravva died intestate. He contends that there are documents to show that Smt.Paravva had bequeathed the suit schedule properties not only by way of gift deed but also by a testament. Therefore, the plaintiffs for the present could not claim that Smt.Paravva died intestate. He contends that if the defendants are able to establish that the Will and gift deed executed by Smt.Paravva were - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 lawful and valid, then the title in the properties as well as the possession would be deemed to be delivered to the defendant No.1 under the said documents. He therefore contends that the trial Court committed an error in restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. He therefore contends that the impugned order passed by the trial Court insofar as it relates to restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties is liable to be set aside. He also contends that the defendant No.2 is adopted son of Smt.Paravva and in view of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, there is presumption that the adoption is in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. He therefore contends that even the Will and gift deed are ignored when Smt.Paravva did not die intestate but had left behind a lawful successor who succeeded to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 the suit schedule properties, no injunction could be granted against the true owner. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that they are the nephew and niece of Smt.Paravva while the defendant No.1 is the brother of Smt.Paravva. He contends that the properties in question were succeeded by Smt.Paravva from her husband. He therefore contends that after the death of Smt.Paravva, the properties should revert back to the heirs of her husband; who are the plaintiffs. Therefore, he contends that the trial Court was right in granting an order of injunction. He also contends that the Will and gift deed set up by the defendant No.1 are compulsorily attestable documents and unless the same are proved in accordance with law, the defendants cannot be treated as the lawful heirs of Smt.Paravva. Hence, he contends that the trial Court was justified in granting an order of injunction. This apart, he contends that the plaintiffs have made out a triable case and in order to maintain status quo of the suit - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 schedule properties, pending disposal of the suit and the trial Court was right in granting an order of injunction. He also contends that the suit schedule properties comprise of agricultural and residential properties. He contends that after the death of Smt.Paravva the residential properties continued in possession of the plaintiffs and therefore the trial Court was right in injuncting the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. He also contends that this Court cannot interfere with the orders of the trial Court and the Appellate Court unless there is error apparent on the face of records. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants and also perused the order of the trial Court and the Appellate Court. 10. The title of Smt.Paravva to the suit schedule properties is not in dispute as both the plaintiffs and the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 defendants claim title to the suit schedule properties through Smt.Paravva. The questions that arises for consideration before the trial Court are (i) whether Smt.Paravva died intestate? (ii) whether she had adopted the defendant No.2? (iii) whether she had executed the Will and a gift deed in favour of the defendant No.1? If the defendant No.2 is able to establish that he was validly adopted by Smt.Paravva then the right of the plaintiffs would be subservient to the right of the defendant No.1. Likewise, if Smt.Paravva had executed a Will and gift deed in favour of the defendant No.1 then the right of the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 shall be subject to the right of the defendant No.1. Therefore, the trial Court was expected to determine a disputed question of fact. Consequently, status of the suit schedule properties had to be maintained pending disposal of the suit. 11. It is trite law in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of C.N.Nagendra Singh vs. The Special D.C. Bangalore and Others reported in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 ILR 2002 KAR 2750 where, this Court held that revenue entries cannot be mutated based on a Will or a compulsorily attestable document. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in granting an order of injunction restraining the defendants from seeking entry of their names in the revenue records of the agricultural properties of Smt.Paravva, based on the gift and Will referred supra. 12. As regards the possession of the suit schedule properties are concerned, it is too premature to hold that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties as the successors of Smt.Paravva. We cannot ignore that interim orders of whatsoever nature, in a suit before a civil Court, are granted as a step in aid to the final relief and to maintain status quo of the suit property pending disposal of the suit. When the final relief that may be granted to the plaintiffs is doubtful or requires elaborate trial, it would be appropriate to pass such orders to ensure that the status quo of the suit properties are maintained. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. The appropriate remedy that the trial Court could have granted was that to direct the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule properties, not only in respect of the possession of the suit schedule properties but also the nature of the suit schedule properties and to restrain the plaintiffs and the defendants from transferring, encumbering or part with possession of the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the trial Court and Appellate Court warrants interference to a limited extent. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 (ii) The impugned order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the trial Court allowing I.A. Nos.II and III is modified. (iii) The plaintiffs and the defendants are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule properties which means that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants shall encumber, alienate, transfer or part with possession of the suit schedule properties in any manner whatsoever and also they shall not change the nature of the suit schedule properties in any manner whatsoever. They shall also maintain status quo as regards the possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of this order. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8719 WP No. 100589 of 2024 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 suit based on the evidence adduced before it. Any observations made herein is for the limited purpose of considering this petition and shall not affect the final outcome of the suit. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE RH Ct:vh List No.: 38 Sl No.: 2