- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2949 WP No. 107393 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107393 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O SHEKHAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE PRAKASH S/O SHEKHAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE GANGAMMA D/O SHEKHAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE SMT. SOMAVVA W/O PUTTAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE (ALL ARE R/O BELAGALPETA TQ: HANAGAL DIST HAVERI) SMT. NEESHIMAVVA@ LALITAVVA W/O MALLESHAPPA KICHADI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O HULAGUR VILLAGE TQ: HANGAL DIST HAVERI SMT. RATNAVVA @ RENUKA W/O RAMESH KICHADI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2949 WP No. 107393 of 2024 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O HULAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: HANGAL DIST HAVERI SMT. SVAKKA @ SAVITRI W/O MAHANTESH AKKI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O GOTAGODIKOPPA VILLAGE TQ. HANGAL DIST HAVERI SMT. MALLAVVA W/O SHIVAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE RAVI S/O SHIVAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE CHANDRU S/O SHIVAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE KUMAR S/O SHIVAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE PRABHAPPA BASAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE (ALL ARE R/O BELEGALPETA TQ: HANAGAL DIST HAVERI) SMT. NEELAMMA W/O GANGAPPA BANKAPUR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O HUNASIKATTI, TQ: HANGAL DIST HAVERI SMT. RENAMMA W/O BASAPPA VALAGERI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2949 WP No. 107393 of 2024 15. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SHEKAPPA S/O BASAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE (ALL ARE R/O BELAGALPETA TQ: HANAGAL DIST: HAVERI) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B MANE,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. NEELAPPA @ MELAPPA S/O SHANTAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE SMT. SOMANTAVVA W/O NISHIMAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE SAROJA D/O NISHIMAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK ANNAPPA S/O NISHIMAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE PARAMESH S/O NISHIMAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE SMT. ANNAPOORNA W/O ULAVAPPA BYALAL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE SHANTAPPA S/O ULAVAPPA BYALAL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2949 WP No. 107393 of 2024 8. 9. AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE (ALL ARE R/O BELAGALPETA TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI) SMT. LAXMI W/O SHEKAPPA BARADUR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O HARAVI VILLAGE, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI, SMT. LALITA W/O CHIDANAND GALI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O KOODAL TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR S. MOT., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO C/R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27-9-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HANGAL ON IA NO.I IN OS NO.30/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 27.9.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC Hangal on IA No. 1 in O.S.No.30/2023 vide Annexure-E. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2949 WP No. 107393 of 2024 b. A writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order 24.10.2024 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Hangal in M.A.No.06/2023 vide Annexure-G and consequently reject the application at I.A.No.1 filed in O.S.No. 30/2023 vide Annexure-D. c. And issue any other writ or order or direction and grant any such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Respondents No.1 to 5 herein had filed a suit for partition and separate possession, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as defendants No.5 to 19. In the said suit, the plaintiffs had filed an application seeking for injunction against defendant No.19 from putting up any construction on suit schedule item 2- A property. The trial Court vide order dated 27.9.2023, allowed the said application and restrained defendant No.19 from putting up any construction as sought for. 3. The petitioners-herein filed an appeal in Misc.Appeal No.6 of 2023 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hangal, the First Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 24.10.2024 dismissed the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2949 WP No. 107393 of 2024 Misc. Appeal. It is challenging the same, that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. The submission of Sri.Santosh B.Mane., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiffs have put up construction on the very same property subject matter of partition and as such the petitioners also have to be permitted to complete the construction on the said property. Admittedly, the properties are joint family properties. He submits that there could not have been an injunction order passed against the petitioners who are also joint owners of the property. 5. Sri.Gaurishankar S.Mot., learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondents No.1 to 5-plaintiffs would submit that even during the pendency of the matter before the First Appellate Court the petitioners have gone ahead with the construction as regards which the plaintiffs have filed a complaint with the jurisdictional police on 11.09.2023. He has produced - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2949 WP No. 107393 of 2024 photographs and the complaint along with the memo, which I have gone through. 6. A perusal of the photographs would indicate that there is no construction at the initial stage when the suit in OS No.30 of 2023 was filed. Whereas, photographs which have now been produced by the petitioner in this petition shows much more construction then that shown at the time when the injunction order was passed. 7. That being so, clearly the petitioners have even during the operation of the injunction order gone ahead with the construction which would have to be dealt with in appropriate proceedings as and when filed by the respondents. 8. Be that as it may, the construction having commenced during the pendency of the suit and proceeded with thereafter, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served by allowing the petitioner to go ahead with the construction, more so when in the event of, the land on which the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2949 WP No. 107393 of 2024 construction being situate where to fall to the share of any other Joint family member. The construction would either have to be demolished and/or the petitioner cannot claim any equities on the said construction. No submission has been made by the petitioner that the petitioner would not claim any equities, I am of the considered opinion that the said construction therefore cannot proceed. 9. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the First Appellate Court being proper and correct, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45