- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11683 WP No. 106456 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106456 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NINGANAGOUDA S/O. TAKANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MUDDINAKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581203. 2. SRI. PRAVEEN S/O. NINGANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MUDDINAKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. CHANNABASANAGOUDA S/O. CHANNAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MUDDDINAKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581203. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) WHEREFORE, THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER MAY KINDLY BE Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11683 WP No. 106456 of 2025 ISSUED, THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIGGAON, IN M.A.NO.2/2025 DATED 28.07.2025 PASSED AS PER ANNEXURE- K AND TO RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED IN O.S.NO.261/2023 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SHIGGAON ON I.A.NO.1 DATED 15.01.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-G BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. II) TO GRANT ANY OTHER SUCH OTHER RELIEFS WHICH THE HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. WHEREFORE, this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order may kindly be issued, thereby quashing the impugned order passed by Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shiggaon, in M.A.No.2/2025 dated 28.07.2025 passed as per Annexure-K and to restore the order passed in O.S.No.261/2023 by the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Shiggaon on I.A.No.1 dated 15.01.2025 as per Annexure-G by allowing this writ petition in the interest of justice. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11683 WP No. 106456 of 2025 ii. To grant any other such other reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. Notice to the respondent is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.261 of 2023 seeking injunction restraining the petitioners (defendants) from interfering with possession. An ex-parte injunction was granted. Upon appearance, the defendants filed written statement alleging that the plaintiffs’ documents are fabricated and forged, and plaintiffs have no valid title; thus, injunction ought not to be granted. 4. The Trial Court, finding a cloud over the title and absence of a prayer for declaration, vacated the injunction and dismissed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 by the plaintiffs. 5. The plaintiffs preferred appeal in M.A.No.22 of 2025. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material, set aside the Trial Court’s order and granted injunction. It held the defendants’ allegations to be without substance, noting - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11683 WP No. 106456 of 2025 that no documents were produced in support of their title claim, and mere allegations of ownership did not necessitate a declaration of title along with an injunction prayer. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the plaintiffs’ documents are forged and fabricated; hence declaratory relief was necessary as per Hon’ble Apex Court decisions. He further contends the First Appellate Court erred in granting injunction. 7. Heard Sri S.N. Banakar, learned counsel for petitioners and perused records. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy V/s. M.Mallappa1, more particularly para No.15 of the judgment which is reproduced for ready reference : “15. It could thus clearly be seen that this is not a case where the plaintiff-appellant can be said to have clear title over the suit property or that there is no cloud on plaintiff/appellant’s title over the suit property. The question involved one which requires adjudication after 1 AIR 2021 SC 4293 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11683 WP No. 106456 of 2025 the evidence is led and questions of fact and law are decided.” 8.1. By relying on T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy’s case, he submits that whether the plaintiff had not made out a clear title over the suit property, or that there is a cloud on the plaintiff’s title over the property. He submits that when the plaintiff had not made out a clear title over the suit property, or that there is a cloud on the plaintiff’s title over the property. The same would require adjudication after evidence and an injunction ought not to be granted. 8.2. Further, reliance is placed on the judgment of Suresh Kumar Through GPA V/s. Anil Kakaria and others 2 more particularly para No.17 of the judgment which is reproduced for ready reference : “17. In the first place, the appellant had no title to the suit land. All that he had claimed to possess in relation to the suit land was an agreement dated 24.04.1980 to purchase the suit land from its owner (Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria). The appellant, as mentioned above, failed to prove the agreement. In this view of the matter, the appellant had no prima facie case in his favour to file a suit nor he had even 2 AIR 2017 SC 5239 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11683 WP No. 106456 of 2025 any locus to file the suit in relation to the suit land once the agreement was held not proved.” By relying on Anil Kakaria’s he submits that when prima facie case is not made out Injunction can not be granted.” 8.3. He relies on the judgment of this court in M/s. Patel Enterprises V/s. M.P.Ahuja 3 more particularly para No.14 of the judgment which is reproduced for ready reference : “14. The trial Court has made certain observations doubting the genuineness of one of the documents filed by the third defendant by references to the date mentioned therein. This again is a matter of evidence which will have to be considered afresh by the trial Court. Any expression of opinion by us may prejudice the rights of the parties on that aspect. Hence, we do not express any opinion in this regard. However, one of the factors to be considered by the trial Court while considering the case for temporary injunction is whether prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff. This certainly would include the nature of the suit filed and its maintainability. If, on the face of it, the suit is not maintainable, question of issuing any temporary injunction would not arise. The third defendant had raised the question of maintainability of the suit and the trial Court has left it open to be considered at a later stage (vide: Para-29 of the order of the trial Court). We do not think that this is a case where the trial Court should have postponed the consideration of the said question having regard to the very nature of the pleadings. We have summarised the plaint averments already. It looks as if the plaintiff is aggrieved by the 3 ILR 1992 Karnataka 3772 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11683 WP No. 106456 of 2025 non payment of the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the plaintiff by the second defendant. However, the plaintiff does not seek a decree for payment of the said sum in the usual form. The plaintiff seeks only a mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 and 2 to pay the said sum to the plaintiff. To what extent such a relief is maintainable when an appropriate relief for the decree for payment is not sought, has to be considered by the trial Court before proceeding further. Admittedly, there is dispute as to the title in respect of the T.V. rights. We do not find any relief of declaration in the plaint. This also will have to be considered at the threshold by the trial Court. Since we have left open the said questions to be considered by the trial Court, we have refrained from stating further facts as the very statement by us may prejudice the rights of one or the other. Since the trial Court has failed to consider the main question before proceeding to consider the case for an order of temporary injunction, we are constrained to set aside the order of the trial Court under Appeal.” 8.4. By relying on M/s. Patel Enterprises’s case, he submits that genuineness of documents is for trial determination and injunction should not be based on disputed documents. 9. Having perused the orders passed by the trial court and first appellate court and documents filed along with the petition. It is seen that the plaintiff claims title over the property under a relinquishment deed, on the basis of which the plaintiff has been making payment of due taxes. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11683 WP No. 106456 of 2025 The contention of the defendants is that the relinquishment deed, the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, and the property tax receipts are fabricated. That apart, there is no individual title being asserted by the defendants, and even if such a claim is made, no document in support thereof has been produced by them. 10. A mere assertion that the defendants are the owners and that the plaintiffs are not, would not require the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration. The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction restraining interference with possession. The plaintiff is claiming title, and such title has not been dislodged by the respondents. Therefore, in my opinion, there would be no requirement to seek such declaration, as rightly held by the First Appellate Court. No infirmity is found in the said order of the First Appellate Court. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, under the guise of the injunction order, the plaintiffs are seeking to put up construction on the property. If that be so, it would always be open for the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11683 WP No. 106456 of 2025 petitioners to avail such remedies as are available under law, reserving such liberty. The petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE VB/CT:PA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14