- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:654 MFA No. 102520 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102520 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KRISHNA S/O. MAHADEV GHADI, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND RETIRED TEACHER, 2. SRI. ANANT S/O. DEVAPPA GHADI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 3. SRI. DATTATRAYA S/O. DEVAPPA GHADI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/AT. H.NO.579, NETAJI GALLI, YALLUR VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ARVIND S/O. VASANT PATIL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/AT. H.NO.177, JANATA COLONY, SULAGA YELLUR, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SMT. ROHINI W/O. CHHAYAPPA JADHAV (AFTER MARRIAGE) SMT. ROHINI D/O. DEVAJI KUNDEKAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. H/W, R/AT.H.NO.203, SHIVAJI NAGAR, SULAGE-YELLUR, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SMT. NANDA W/O. DEVARAJ KUNDEKAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. H/W, R/AT. SUBHASH GALLI, YELLUR VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRISH A.YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:654 MFA No. 102520 of 2023 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI, PASSED IN O.S.NO.22/2023 DATED 10.04.2023 ON I.A NO.1 AND ALLOW I.A.NO.I BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The plaintiffs have filed the appeal as against rejection of I.A.No.1 filed by them under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC praying for an interim order of injunction maintaining the possession. 2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The appellants who are the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs for order of interim injunction - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:654 MFA No. 102520 of 2023 maintaining possession was rejected. Being aggrieved by it, the present appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that they are in possession by virtue of the sale deed dated 06.08.1970. Therefore, rejection of I.A.No.1 is not correct. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No.1 submitted that defendant No.1 is in possession by virtue of sale deed dated 14.10.2022. The trial Court has rejected I.A.No.1 on the reason that in the revenue records, the name of defendant No.1 is reflected, which prima facie shows that defendant No.1 is in possession and not the plaintiffs. On this reason, rejected I.A.No.1. 6. Both plaintiff and defendant No.1 are claiming rival claim that they are in possession over the suit property. Admittedly, the suit property is a vacant land. The plaintiffs are claiming that they are in actual and physical possession, by virtue of the sale deed executed on 06.08.1970. But defendant No.1 is claiming that he is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:654 MFA No. 102520 of 2023 in possession by virtue of sale deed dated 14.10.2022 and as per the sale deed, his name is entered in the revenue records. Now the suit is pending for consideration before the trial Court. Hence, it is just and proper, let the trial in suit continue before the trial Court and in the event, if an order of status-quo is granted with regard to physical possession as on today and directing the trial Court to proceed with the trial and consider the suit as per law would be the proper remedy. 7. Therefore, the appeal is disposed off with a direction to both parties to maintain status-quo of physical possession as on today over the suit schedule property and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law and dispose off the suit as early as possible not later than one year from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26