- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106017 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. DHANAJI NARAYAN RANE, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.2828/A, TENGINKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SHRI. RAMESH NARAYAN RANE, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.2828/A, TENGINKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SHRI. ANANT NARAYAN RANE, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. H.NO.2828/A, TENGINKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARAD MALGOUND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHAMEM PACHASAHEB AHAMADI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H.NO.2387, AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SHRI. PARVEZ PACHASAHEB AHAMADI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. H.NO.2387, AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.14 15:25:57 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 3. SHRI. MAQSOOD PACHASAHEB AHAMADI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. H.NO.2387, AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 4. SMT. YASMEEN ADDULRAHIM JAMADAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. P.NO.13, NO.43/2B, 5TH CROSS, AZAM NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010. 5. SMT. BIBIZOHARA W/O. MAHABOOBSAB AHAMADI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO.2387, AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 6. SMT. REHANA W/O. MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM AHAMADI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. H.NO.2387, AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 7. SHRI. EJAZ S/O. MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM AHAMADI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.2387, AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 8. SHRI. FAYAZ S/O. MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM AHAMADI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.2387, AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 9. SHRI. ATHARALI S/O. MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM AHAMADI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.2387, AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 10. SMT. KHRUSHID W/O. ABDUL MUNAF AHAMADI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H.NO.2387, AZAD GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 11. SHRI. BHAU NARAYAN RANE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.2828/A, TENGINKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 12. SMT. SHANTA BHAU @ BHAURAO RANE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H.NO.2278/A, TENGINKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 13. SMT. ANITA ANIL PATIL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H.NO.2828/A, TENGINKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 14. SHRI. SACHIN BHAU @ BHAURAO RANE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.2828/A, TENGINKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 15. SHRI. MATEEN NISARHMED SHAIKHALI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KOTWAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. TEJAPAL A. KAMAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1–R10; R11-R15 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04-09-2024 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI IN M.A. NO.34/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER, WRIT OR DIRECTION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS FOUND ENTITLED TO IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 04-09-2024 passed by the appellate court Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi in M.A. No.34/2023 vide Annexure-F; 2. Issue any other order, writ or direction to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the present facts and circumstances. 2. The brief facts of the case are; 2.1. Respondent Nos.1 to 10 filed a suit in O.S.No.751/2022 seeking for the following reliefs: “A. A decree declaring that the plaintiffs are the lawful owners in possession of the suit land described in para No. 'A and B' of the plaint. B. A decree for declaration declaring that the alleged sale deed dated 30.04.1968 registered on 31.05.1968 under document No.758 in book No.I volume No.1 at Page No.193 to 195 is illegal, and not binding on the interest of the plaintiffs. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 C. A decree for declaration declaring that the alleged sale deed dated 01.03.2021 registered on 02.03.2021 under document no.BEL-1- 19190-2020-21 at CD No. BELD is illegal and not binding on the interest of the plaintiffs. D. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants is their agents, servants, henchmen's are anybody acting their behalf from disturbing the lawful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property either by direct interference or by any other mode. E. If the Hon'ble Court come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit properties then the plaintiffs alternatively pray for decree for possession. F. Any other relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled may kindly be granted. G. The plaintiffs may kindly be permitted to amend the plaint as and when it is required. H. The cost of the suit may kindly be awarded.” 2.2. In the said suit, an application in I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, had been filed seeking for the following relief: “APPLICATION U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF C.P.C; Herein, the application on behalf of the above named plaintiffs is as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most humbly prayed that the ex-parte ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants their agents, servants, henchman's or anybody acting on their behalf from alienating the suit lands by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, gift or any other mode known to law till the disposal of the suit on merits in the ends of promoting justice.” 2.3. The Trial Court, vide its order dated 12.01.2023, dismissed the said application on the ground that there is no prima facie case made out, nor was the balance of convenience made out, and further that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the petitioners, who are defendants therein. 2.4. Since the sale deeds have been executed way back in the year 1968, whereunder possession is stated to have been delivered to the purchasers, who subsequently had certain other transactions, there being sale deeds executed in favor of the defendants, no - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 injunction order could be passed against the true owners merely on the claim of the plaintiffs that the sale deeds have been executed behind the back of the plaintiffs. 2.5. Challenging the said order, the plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.34/2023, which came to be allowed on 04.09.2024, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, on the ground that there is a prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs. The real controversy between the parties could be determined after framing appropriate issues and leading evidence, it is to be determined whether the defendants have fabricated the documents by fraudulent means and falsely represented before the Land Tribunal and obtained tenancy rights. 2.6. The burden of proving all these allegations being on the plaintiffs, the First Appellate - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 Court was of the opinion that, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the defendants ought to be restrained from alienating the suit properties and creating third-party rights. It is challenging the same, the petitioners is before this Court. 3. Sri.Sharad Malgound Patil, counsel for the petitioners, submits that, it is not for the defendants to establish the transaction to be valid, but it is for the plaintiffs to establish the transaction to be invalid. The genesis of the matter relates to the tenancy rights granted by the Land Tribunal. The said grant of tenancy rights are still to be challenged, and without such challenge, the question of challenging the sale deed executed in pursuance thereto would not arise. The suit is a speculative one filed for obvious reasons. The defendants being the owners of the properties, in possession, occupation and use thereof, cannot be restrained and as such - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 cannot be restrained from in any manner dealing with the said properties on the basis of such speculative litigation, wherein the rights granted by the Tribunal have not been challenged. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 10 would submit that the plaintiffs, in para 8 of the plaint, have reserved their right to challenge the order of the Land Tribunal, and as such, the plaintiffs would be challenging the same shortly, and until orders are passed therein, the properties have to be preserved in status-quo by granting an order of injunction against the defendants. Since, if the Plaintiffs were to succeed in the matter, the same would result in multiplicity of proceedings, and on that basis, he submits that the First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the matter and granted an order of injunction. 5. Heard Sri.Sharad Malgound Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Tejpal A. Kamal, learned - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 counsel for respondents No.1 to 10. Perused the papers. 6. As rightly contended by Sri. Sharad Malgound Patil, the genesis of the matter relates to the grant of tenancy rights. The said grant has not been challenged. Though the plaintiffs have in para 8 reserved the right to challenge the grant of tenancy rights in a suit in O.S.No.751, in the aforesaid suit filed in the year 2022 on 24/08/2022, till date, no challenge has been made to the said grant of tenancy rights. 7. The mere reservation of the right to challenge the tenancy rights, in my considered opinion, cannot enure to the benefit of the plaintiffs without them having challenged it. On the possibility of the plaintiffs challenging the grant of tenancy rights, an injunction cannot be awarded against the true owners. It is for the plaintiffs to succeed in the challenge to the grant of tenancy rights, and only - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 thereafter prosecute their claims against the defendants. In the absence of any favorable orders passed by the Land Tribunal cancelling the grant of tenancy rights, none of the claims of the plaintiffs would be maintainable. 8. Thus, in conclusion, the Trial Court was right in holding that no prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiffs and that the balance of convenience lies in favor of the defendants. Furthermore, though the defendants being the owners under a registered sale deed, a true owner cannot be injuncted from dealing with the properties. 9. Be that as it may, any alienation of the properties if effected by the defendants would be subject to the principle of lis pendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the suit is one for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deeds, no injunction can be granted. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2675 WP No. 106017 of 2024 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Certiorari is issued, order dated 04.09.2024, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, in M.A.No.34/2023 is set aside. iii. The order dated 12.01.2023, passed by the VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi, in O.S.No.751/2022 is confirmed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7