- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17085 WP No. 105297 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 105297 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA KSHATRIYA, AGED ABOUT: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. SUDHIR S/O. HANUMANTAPPA KSHATRIYA AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 3. VIJAY S/O. HANUMANTAPPA KSHATRIYA AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRIC CONTRACTOR, 4. PRAKASH S/O. HANUMANTAPPA KSHATRIYA, AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS, OCC: YOGA CLASS PROFESSOR, 5. JAGADISH S/O. HANUMANTAPPA KSHATRIYA, AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 6. BHAGYASHRI D/O. HANUMANTAPPA KSHATRIYA, AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O: KURUBAR ONI, BHUSAPPA CHOWK, DHARWAD, ALL THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTED THROUGH GPA HOLDER, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:47 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17085 WP No. 105297 of 2018 PETITIONER NO.3, VIJAY S/O. HANUMANTAPPA KSHATRIYA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ANASAVVA W/O. RENAPPA SUNAGAR @ KUBYAL, AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DHARWAD, NOW AT SAVANUR. 2. SMT. RUKMINI D/O. RENAPPA SUNAGAR @ KUBYAL, AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DHARWAD. 3. SMT. PARVATEVVA W/O. SHANKAR PATIL AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DHARWAD. 4. SRI. PARASHURAM S/O. HUCHACHAPPA HOSMANI, AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: DHARWAD. 5. FAKKIRAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA KUBYAL @ SUNAGAR, AGED ABOUT: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KUMBAR ONI, MADARMADDI, DHARWAD. 6. CHANABASAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA KUBYAL @ SUNAGAR, AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KUMBAR ONI, MADARMADDI, DHARWAD. (DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2019) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17085 WP No. 105297 of 2018 7. RAJU S/O. YAMANAPPA SAVANUR AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: KUMBAR ONI, MADARMADDI, DHARWAD. 8. SMT. FAKKIRAVVA W/O. SHRIKANT HALAMANI AGED ABOUT: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KUMBAR ONI, MADARMADDI, DHARWAD. 9. SIDDAPPA S/O. PANCHAPPA SUNAGAR AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUNAVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. (DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2019) 10. SMT. SUREKHA D/O. SIDDAPPA SUNAGAR AGED ABOUT: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUNAVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. (DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2019) 11. SMT. KUNTEVVA W/O. YALLAPPA MANGALARATTI AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KYARKOPPA, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD. 12. SMT. SAVAKKA W/O. ISHWAR SUNAGAR AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KYARKOPPA, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD. 13. SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. RENAPPA SUNAGAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: AMARGOL, TQ: HUBBALLI, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17085 WP No. 105297 of 2018 DIST: DHARWAD. 14. SMT. RENUKA D/O. YALLAPPA SUNAGAR @ KUBYAL, AGED ABOUT: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DHARWAD, NOW AT SAVANUR. 15. FAKIRESH S/O. YALLAPPA SUNAGAR @ KUBYAL, AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DHARWAD, NOW AT SAVANUR. 16. SMT. RATNAVVA D/O. YALLAPPA SUNAGAR @ KUBYAL, AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DHARWAD, NOW AT SVANUR. RESPONDENTS NOS.13 TO 16 ARE DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARANU NANDOOR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.S.SAVADATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5, R8, R11, R12 IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE TO R6, R9, R10, R13 TO R16 ARE DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD IN M.A.NO.19/2016 DATED 04.07.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-"K" AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17085 WP No. 105297 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 04.07.2018 rejecting the application seeking temporary injunction order granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent. 2. In terms of the impugned order, the Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.19/2016 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad has vacated the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court. 3. The Trial Court has granted temporary injunction on the premise that the petitioners/plaintiffs are in possession of the property. 4. Certain facts are not in dispute. The present respondents had filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.316/1992. Said suit is decreed and in final decree proceeding FDP No.6/2006, share is allotted to the present respondents. The respondents sought to execute the decree to seek possession from the present petitioners, who are in occupation of the property. The petitioners filed objection. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17085 WP No. 105297 of 2018 Trial Court rejected the application on the premise that the present petitioners do not have any independent right over the property, as they are claiming through one of the judgment debtors in a suit for partition. At the same time, it reserved the liberty to the present petitioners to file a suit to establish the right over the property. Accordingly, the suit in O.S.No.3/2010 is filed. In the said suit, a temporary injunction is granted in favour of the present petitioners. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and rejected the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that their possession is settled under the lease agreement dated 24.07.1987, which was for a period of 25 years, and was extended on 06.05.2005. It is noticed that both agreements are unregistered and not duly stamped. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that stamp duty was paid pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court, as there was a direction to pay stamp duty. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17085 WP No. 105297 of 2018 7. It is noticed that no document is produced to show that stamp duty is paid. However, it is to be noticed that the document is not registered and the final decree is not called in question. The effect of the final decree is that the person who has executed the alleged lease agreement in favour of the present petitioners was not the absolute owner of the property. Hence, the lease agreement cannot be given effect to in respect of entire property. It is valid only to the extent of the share of defendant No.1. 8. In addition to that, it is also required to be noticed that the document which purports to create lease for 25 years is not registered. In the absence of registration, the said document should be construed as a lease only for a period of 11 months. The petitioners have occupied the property beyond 11 months from the date of the second lease agreement dated 06.05.2005. 9. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Court, which has vacated the interim order. The due process has been sufficiently complied. The petitioners cannot - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17085 WP No. 105297 of 2018 seek injunction against the decree holders, who have lawfully obtained the decree for partition and separate possession. 10. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK/PMP Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35