- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52236 WP No. 16568 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 16568 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BETTASWAMY, S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. RAMEGOWDA, S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. KUMARA, S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 4. CHANNEGOWDA, S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS AT PATELANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, BEKKALALE DAKLE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANIRUDH CHAMUNDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI CHANNEGOWDA, S/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. SRI BETTAIAH, S/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52236 WP No. 16568 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. SRI HONNAPPA, S/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 4. SRI CHANNAPPA, S/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 5. SRI CHIKKAMARIGOWDA, S/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 6. SRI PRAKASHA, S/O LATE GUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 7. SMT RAJAMMA, W/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 8. SMT CHANNAMMA, W/O BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 9. SMT VIJAYAMMA, W/O CHIKKAMARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS AT PATELANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, BEKKALALE DAKLE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.LAKSHMIKANTH.K., ADV FOR R1 TO R4 & R6 TO R8; SRI. T.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52236 WP No. 16568 of 2024 IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.02.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR IN M.A. NO.14/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR ON I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Plaintiffs are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 23.02.2024 passed on M.A.No.14/2023 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.393/2021 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court seeking decree and permanent injunction. Contesting defendants have entered appearance and filed their written statement in the suit. I.A.No.1 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC which was dismissed by the Trial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52236 WP No. 16568 of 2024 Court on 21.03.2023. Assailing the said order plaintiff had filed M.A.No.14/2023 before the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur which was dismissed on 23.02.2024. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2024 passed in M.A.No.14/2023 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur without even challenging the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.393/2021. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in this petition submits that petitioners are in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property. There was oral partition between Channegowda and Honnegowda under whom the parties claim. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in rejecting I.A.No.1. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting defendants have argued in support of the orders impugned. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52236 WP No. 16568 of 2024 6. Plaintiffs claim under one Honnegowda, who is the direct brother of one Sri.Channa. The defendants claim under the aforesaid Sri.Channa. It is the case of the plaintiffs that there was oral partition between Honnegowda and his brother Channa and plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property, which was allotted to Honnegowda under the oral partition. But there is absolutely no material to prove the said aspect of the matter. On the other hand, the respondents herein who claim under Channa who is the direct brother of Honnegowda have filed O.S.No.318/2022 seeking the relief of declaration and alternatively the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. 7. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property which is the subject matter of the present suit in O.S.No.393/2021 is also the subject matter of the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.318/2022. It is trite that no injunction can be granted against co-owners of the property. The Courts below having appreciated the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52236 WP No. 16568 of 2024 aforesaid aspects of the matter and also considering that the plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case have rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Unless this Court finds that the order impugned are perverse and illegal, the said orders cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that this writ petition does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24