- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1080 WP No. 200486 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.200486 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. RAJESAB S/O. HASANSAB LOGAVI, AGE:74 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O.MASBINAL, TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA. 2 MAHEBOOB S/O.DAVALSAB LOGAVI, AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MASABINAL, TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA. 3. HASEENA W/O. ABDUL RAJAQ LOGAVI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O. NEAR SHEFI MASAJID, NEAR MAINA BEECH, VASCO, GOA STATE. 4. HASAN S/O. ABDUL RAJAQ LOGAVI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. NEAR SHEFI MASJID, NEAR MAINA BEECH, VASCO, GOA STATE. 5. HUSENSA S/O. ABDUL RAJAQ LOGAVI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. NEAR SHEFI MASJID, NEAR MAINA BEECH, VASCO, GOA STATE. 6. MUSKAN W/O. SOUKATALI GADADI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O. NEAR SHEFI MASJID, NEAR MAINA BEECH, VASCO, GOA STATE. Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1080 WP No. 200486 of 2020 7. ASHMA D/O. ABDUL RAJAQ LOGAVI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O. NEAR SHEFI MASJID, NEAR MAIN BEECH, VASCO, GOA STATE. 8. SHAHAJADBI W/O. JANESAB TAKKALAKI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O. DONUR, TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 9. KASHIMBI W/O. DADAPEER GADADI, AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O. HAMAL COLONY, VIJAYAPURA. 10. KULASUMBI W/O. NABISAB SARAWAD, AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK, R/O. BORAGI, TQ: JATH, DIST:SANGLI, THE PETITIONERS NO:3 TO 10 ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MAHEBOOB S/O. DAWALSAB, I.E., PETITIONER NO: 2. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAYAK APTE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAHEBLAL S/O. GAIBUSAB LOGAVI, AGE:69 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O.MASBINAL, TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 203. 2. NAJEERSAB S/O. GAIBUSAB LOGAVI, AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND GOUNDI, R/O. MASABINAL, TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 203. 3. HAJEESAB @ HAJILAL S/O. SAHEBLAL LOGAVI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MASABINAL, TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 203. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1080 WP No. 200486 of 2020 4. MAMAMMAD S/O. SAHEBLAL LOGAVI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:MASABINAL, TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. IRAPPA SHANKREPPA CHIMMALAGI, ADV. FOR C/R1 TO R4; R1-SERVED, R3 AND R4-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-H DATED 19.11.2019 IN M.A. NO.11/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BASAVANA BAGEWADI AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The plaintiffs in O.S.No.357/2018 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi, are before this Court challenging an order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi in M.A.No.11/2018 by which, it allowed the appeal and set aside an order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi, granting injunction to restrain the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1080 WP No. 200486 of 2020 defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. 2. (i) The suit in O.S.No.357/2018 was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs claimed that their predecessor had filed O.S.No.27/1977 for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The said suit was decreed on 05.11.1979 and an appeal was filed in R.A.No.33/1979 which was dismissed on 12.03.1985. The predecessor of the plaintiffs filed E.P.No.292/1986, while the executing Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to effect partition and to hand over possession of the shares of father of the plaintiffs in suit schedule properties. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner effected partition and delivered the share of the father of the plaintiffs in suit schedule properties and revenue records were transferred to his name. The plaintiffs therefore contended that his father was in lawful possession of suit schedule properties and defendants were disturbing their possession and sought for perpetual injunction. They also filed an application seeking interim injunction to protect their possession in the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1080 WP No. 200486 of 2020 (ii) The suit was contested by the defendants who contended inter alia that the father of the plaintiffs did not derive any lawful title to the suit schedule properties, as the decree passed in O.S.No.27/1977 did not culminate in a final decree, deciding the properties to which the predecessors of the plaintiffs was entitled to. It was also contended that the revenue documents which were entered in the name of predecessor of the plaintiffs were set at naught in revenue proceedings before the competent appellate authority. Therefore, it was contended that the plaintiffs do not derive any title to the suit schedule properties and hence, no injunction could be granted. The application for interim application was also contested on the same lines. (iii) The Trial Court after considering the contentions of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants granted interim injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties and restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule properties. An appeal was preferred by the defendants before the appellate Court. The appellate Court after noticing that the decree passed in O.S.No.27/1977 had not resulted in a final decree identifying the properties that fell - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1080 WP No. 200486 of 2020 to the share of predecessor of the plaintiffs set aside the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that when once the executing Court had directed the revenue officer namely, the Deputy Commissioner to partition the suit schedule properties, as per the preliminary decree and hand over possession and revenue documents were correspondingly transferred to the name of the predecessor of the plaintiffs, the decree is deemed to have been executed. He submits that the plaintiffs are therefore the lawful owners of the suit schedule properties and hence, defendants were bound to be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in suit schedule properties. He therefore contends that the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court was just and proper and that the appellate Court committed an error in interfering with the said order. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants on the other hand contended that the decree passed in O.S.No.27/1977 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1080 WP No. 200486 of 2020 remained on paper, as a final decree was not drawn by the Court. He contended that there was no partition by metes and bounds by taking into account the features of the suit schedule properties and hence, the partition effected by the Deputy Commissioner and the consequent revenue records mutated to the name of the predecessor of the plaintiffs would have no effect. In addition, he contends that the revenue records that stood in the name of the predecessor of the plaintiffs were all set at naught by the defendants by filing appropriate appeals before the appropriate authority. Therefore, he contends that there is nothing as on date to establish that the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the suit schedule properties and hence, no injunction could be granted. He further contends that the appellate Court was justified in rejecting the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel for the defendants. 7. It is now well settled that a preliminary decree only declares the shares of the parties in the suit schedule - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1080 WP No. 200486 of 2020 properties. The actual division takes place only when the suit properties are actually divided. For this purpose, a provision was then made under Section 54 of Civil Procedure Code by directing a revenue officer namely the Deputy Commissioner to suggest a scheme of division. Therefore, the revenue officer after inspecting the properties could suggest a scheme of partition and it was for the Court to accept the scheme of partition after hearing all the parties to the partition. The revenue officer was not allowed to partition the properties and hand over possession of the properties so partitioned. To that extent, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants merits acceptance. Now that the defendants contended that the revenue documents that stood in the name of the predecessor of the plaintiffs on the basis of partition effected by the Deputy Commissioner were all set at naught, there is nothing as on date to establish that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the suit properties under the decree of partition granted in O.S.No.27/1977. Thus, the appellate Court was justified in reversing the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court, as the parties are deemed to have interest in every bit of land until the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1080 WP No. 200486 of 2020 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is just and proper and does not warrant interference and hence, writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs to file final decree proceedings, if they are so advised to draw a final decree in respect of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.27/1977. 9. Any observations made in the course of this order shall not come in the way of the Trial Court disposing the suit on merits. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: AK