- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26894 W.P. No.6886/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.6886/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MEENAKSHI W/O VENKATESH AGED 27 YEARS R/AT. HOSANAGARA EXTENSION HIRISAVE HOBLI, BELUR TOWN BELUR, HASSAN-573115. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. NANDINI B, ADV., FOR SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M. ADV.,) AND: THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BELUR, HASSAN-573 115. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN M.A.NO.23/2019 DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELUR VACATING THE INTERIM ORDER DATED ON 20.06.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 OF THE O.S.NO.3/2019 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIV.) AND JMFC, BELUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26894 W.P. No.6886/2020 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate Writ or Order quashing the impugned Order vide Annexure-F in M.A.No.23/2019 dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Belur vacating the interim order dated 10.06.2019 vide Annexure-E passed on IA.No.3 of the O.S.No.3/2019 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div) & JMFC, Belur in the interest of justice." 2. Smt.Nandini B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed OS.No.3/2019 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur for relief of permanent injunction. It is submitted that along with the plaint the petitioner filed an application for seeking temporary injunction which came to be allowed by the trial Court on 10.06.2019. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court reversed the order of the trial Court vide order dated 20.12.2019 by recording the finding that the petitioner has no title over the suit schedule property and unless the title is proved, her possession cannot be considered. The order of the Appellate Court is impugned in this petition. It is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26894 W.P. No.6886/2020 further submitted that the petitioner has made out a prime facie case before the trial Court by placing sufficient material to establish factum of possession and the trial Court considered the same and allowed the application. However, the Appellate Court by the impugned order dated 20.12.2019 brushed aside the finding of the trial Court by exceeding the scope of appeal. It is also submitted that the Appellate Court is required to look into the correctness or otherwise of the finding of the trial Court. However, it has gone to the extent of recording the finding that the petitioner has no title over the property, hence, not entitled for temporary injunction. It is contended that if the relief of temporary injunction and possession of the petitioner is not protected, the respondent being the instrumentality of the State, may take the law into its own hand and demolish the existing structure of the petitioner. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26894 W.P. No.6886/2020 3. Though notice is served on the respondent, they remained absent. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 5. The pleading and material on record indicate that the petitioner filed OS.No.3/2019 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, Hassan District seeking relief of permanent injunction against the Town Municipal Council of Belur. The averments in the plaint indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 25 years and the petitioner is paying the tax to the municipality, has secured electricity connection and is residing in the constructed dwelling house. It is asserted that the respondent - Authority highhandedly, without any notice, tried to demolish the suit schedule property, which compelled the petitioner to file the suit. The trial Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26894 W.P. No.6886/2020 considering the plaint averments and the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') has recorded the prima facie finding that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property from last 25 years as it is evident from the material placed before it and exercised a discretionary relief of granting temporary injunction. However, the Appellate Court reversed the said finding of the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has no title over the suit schedule property. In my considered view, the Appellate Court has committed a grave error in recording such finding. The plaint, the application and the material placed before the Court indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property from last 25 years and to establish factum of possession the petitioner has produced tax paid receipt, electricity bill and the ration card. These aforesaid documents prima facie indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property and until the petitioner's suit for permanent injunction is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26894 W.P. No.6886/2020 decided by the trial Court, it is very much necessary to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. The Appellate Court recording the finding with regard to the title was uncalled for as the suit is only for the permanent injunction and the application being an interlocutory application is required to consider primarily with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property which has been rightly considered by the trial Court and allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in her submission that if the interim protection is not accorded to the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, the respondent - Authority would take the law into their own hand and demolish the suit property highhandedly. When such an apprehension is expressed by the petitioner, the interest of justice requires that the petitioner be protected during the pendency of the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26894 W.P. No.6886/2020 For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 20.12.2019 passed in MA.No.23/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge, Belur is hereby set aside. iii) Order dated 10.06.2019 passed on IA.No.3 filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in OS.No.3/2019 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur is confirmed. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28