- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.15621 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O MANJUNATH & D/O LATE CHINNAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT YALACHAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 122 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARUN R. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAMASWAMY, S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT: YELACHAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, - 2 - HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 122 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. THAMMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIN OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU IN M.A.NO.31/2021 DATED 17.06.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-L HERETO AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE AFORESAID MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2021 passed by the Court of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in M.A.No.31/2021, whereby the Appellate Court set aside the Order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, - 3 - Hosakote, in O.S.No.68/2019 on I.A.Nos.I and II filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court and respondent before the appellate Court and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court and the appellants before the appellate Court. 3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred as arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Site No. 87, Khaneshumari No. 75, measuring 29 ft. x 17 ft. out of 75 ft. x 24 ft., more fully described in the schedule, hereinafter referred to as the “Schedule Property”. The property originally belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiff - Nallappa, who acquired it under a registered Sale Deed dated 22.01.1963. The remaining portion was subsequently sold to one Smt.Gowramma to an extent of 37½ X 21 feet by way of sale deed dated - 4 - 08.07.1985. After the demise of the plaintiff’s grandfather, the father of the plaintiff, namely, Chinnappaiah, his brother and sister remained in joint possession of the same. On account of family disputes, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.440/2015 for partition and separate possession, which was decreed on the basis of a compromise petition dated 05.06.2017. 6. Pursuant to the said compromise decree, the Schedule Property fell to the share of the plaintiff, who has been in possession and enjoyment thereof. It is submitted that when she commenced construction, the defendants, who are strangers to the property, attempted to interfere with his possession. Hence, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.68/2019 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, seeking perpetual injunction along with I.A. Nos.I and II under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Schedule Property. 7. Upon service of summons, the defendants appeared and filed written statement and objections. After hearing both sides, the trial Court by Order dated 12.03.2021 allowed - 5 - I.A.Nos.I and II, restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and construction over the Schedule Property. 8. Being aggrieved by the Order of the trial Court, the respondents preferred M.A.No.31/2021 before the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. The appellate Court by order dated 17.06.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the Order of the trial Court and placed reliance on an unregistered partition deed dated 12.05.2017, which was prior to the compromise decree dated 05.06.2017. 9. It is also submitted that the compromise decree in O.S.No.440/2015, which has attained finality, clearly allotted the Schedule Property to the plaintiff. Once such decree has been passed, any prior unregistered partition deed is inadmissible in law and cannot be relied upon to defeat the binding compromise decree. The respondents, being strangers to the property, have no manner of right, title, or interest therein. The trial Court was - 6 - justified in granting temporary injunction to protect the plaintiff’s possession. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the appellate Court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the trial Court by relying on an unregistered partition deed despite the binding compromise decree, ignoring the undisputed ownership and possession of the petitioner and the lack of any right in the respondents, further failed to consider that construction had reached lintel level, thereby causing grave hardship. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents is absent. 12. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the issues raised between the parties in the above suit has to be decided on completion of full-fledged trial only. In view of the same, without touching the merits of the case, it is directed - 7 - that both the parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit, in accordance with law. Further, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight months, after affording an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and produce the documents and also directed both the parties shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the suit as stipulated by this Court. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV CT: UR