- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51160 WP No. 35798 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.35798 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI M B MANJUNATHA GOWDA, S/O LATE BASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT MOODASASI VILLAGE, MAKONAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577132. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED). …PETITIONER (BY SRI P P HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI GANAPATHI BHAT.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI BYARAIAH, S/O LATE RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SMT RUKMINI, D/O GIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SMT. CHIKKAMMA, W/O BYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 4. SMT. RENUKA, D/O BYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT KARBYLE, MAKONAHALLI POST, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51160 WP No. 35798 of 2025 MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577550. 5. SRI. SOMASHEKAR, S/O GIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT MAREBYLE, GONIBEEDU POST, GONIBEEDU HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK- 577550. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03-03-2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE ON I.A NO.I IN O.S NO.108/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE D (B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16-08-2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE REJECTING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.06/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE - E FILED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Mudigere on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.108/2024 at Annexure-D granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court has dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51160 WP No. 35798 of 2025 by the defendant. Thus, both Courts have held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case. Balance of convenience is also held to be in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Defendant/petitioner would submit that the suit is filed in respect of Survey No.1 of Karbyle Village, Mudigere Taluk. The extent of the land is 4 acres and 38 guntas. It is his submission that the total extent of Survey No.1 is 70 acres. And the plaintiff who claims to be a grantee has not produced a grant certificate, has not produced a sketch to show that he is in possession of property within the boundaries mentioned in the sketch. 4. It is urged that the plaintiffs by reason of interim order granted are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property. The Court committed an error in granting injunction when the property is not identified and when the defendant himself has asserted that he is in possession of the property is the submission. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51160 WP No. 35798 of 2025 5. Learned Senior Counsel would also refer to the record of right of Surrey No.1 for the year 1980-1981. Record of Right would reveal the name of defendant to the extent of 7 acres in survey No.1, measuring 27 acres and 29 guntas. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar. 7. It is to be noticed that the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs' name appear in the property records to the extent of 4.38 acres. The plaintiffs claim that one Dumbaaiah was granted the land and after the demise of Dumbaiah and Gangamma, the plaintiffs names are recorded in MR. No.H3/23-24. The Trial Court has also referred to MR. No.2/1979-1980 in the name of Nagaiah Son of Gundaiah. Giving weightage to the long standing mutation entry in the name of the plaintiffs' predecessor, the Court has held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. The Appellate Court did not interfere with the said order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51160 WP No. 35798 of 2025 8. The Appellate Court has also held that the name of the defendant does not appear in the property records and declined to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has also noted that name of Dumbaiah under whom the plaintiffs are claiming was entered in the property records in the year 1979-1980 and supported by MR. No.2/1979-1980. The Appellate Court has also noticed that the defendant has not produced any records to show that he is in possession of the property when the suit was filed. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, as the said view is also a plausible view. 10. It is also made clear that the observations made in this order and observations in the order passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court should not influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit on merits. 11. All contentions of the parties are kept open. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51160 WP No. 35798 of 2025 12. The observations recorded in the impugned orders are tentative, the final judgment has to be based on the evidence to be placed on record. 13. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25