- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787 WP No. 103680 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 103680 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SATTEWWA W/O. DUNDAPPA ARAKERI AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KENGALAGUTTI-586125, TAL. & DIST. VIJAYAPUR. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. P.G NAIK, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. SUSHILAWWA W/O. LAKKAPPA BELAGALI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. YADAHALLI - 587117, TAL. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. SMT. SANYAWWA W/O. RAJAPPA BELAGALI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. YADAHALLI - 587117, TAL. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 3. SMT. KASTUREWWA Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787 WP No. 103680 of 2022 W/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ANTAPUR-587313, TAL. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT. 4. SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA TUNGAL AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BIDARI-587313, TAL. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT. 5. SMT. RUDRAPPAGOUDA S/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ANTAPUR-587313, TAL. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.K. KABBUR, ADV FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN MA NO. 5001/2022 DATED 6-8-2022 BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI ANNEXURE-H AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO.I DATED ON 28-1-2022 IN O.S.NO.233/2021 BY THE PRICIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL AT ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787 WP No. 103680 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This writ petition is filed challenging the order on I.A.I dated 28.01.2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol and the judgment passed in M.A. No.5001/2022 dated 06.08.2022 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamkhandi. 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under: The petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property against the respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating, mortgaging or transferring the suit schedule property pending disposal of the said suit. The respondents opposed the said application by filing objections. The trial Court after considering the material on record dismissed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787 WP No. 103680 of 2022 the application i.e., I.A.I. The petitioners aggrieved by the order on I.A.I, preferred an appeal in M.A. No.5001/2022. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 06.08.2022. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. She submits that the petitioner never intended to include the registered gift deed. Execution of gift deed is an outcome of fraud. The said aspect was not properly considered by the Courts below. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner executed a registered gift deed and kept quiet for more than 12 years and thereafter, she filed a suit for partition and separate possession. He - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787 WP No. 103680 of 2022 submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and prima facie the case includes the maintainability of the suit. Hence, the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for grant of interim order and no balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner. If injunction, as prayed for, is granted, the respondents will be put to hardship. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Admittedly, the plaintiffs executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.3 about 12 years back and the plaintiffs did not challenge the registered gift deed. From the recital of the registered gift deed, it discloses that the petitioner had delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.3 is in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered gift deed. The trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioners have filed a suit after 12 years from - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787 WP No. 103680 of 2022 the date of execution of a registered gift deed and held that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim order. The appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the entire material on record, dismissed the appeal. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact against the petitioner. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order and the judgment. I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court and in the judgment passed by the appellate Court. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB