- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17389 WP No. 109225 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 109225 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. ANJINAPPA S/O. NAGAIAH, AGE. 41 YEARS, 2. SRAMULU S/O HANUMAIAH, AGE. 41 YEARS, 3. MARENNA S/O SANDURAIAH, AGE. 67 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. MALAPUR VILLAGE, SANDUR TOWN AND TALUK, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-580 031. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH BADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMAKKA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED. 82 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, 2. RAMAIAH S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, BOTH ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. MALAPURA VILLAGE, SANDUR TOWN AND TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR-580 031. … RESPONDENTS 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 16.08.2025 IN M.A NO.9/2023 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUDALIGI SITTING AT SANDUR VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO.1 DATED 15.10.2024 IN O.S. NO.185/2021 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SANDUR VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17389 WP No. 109225 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 16.08.2025 in M.A.No.9/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kudaligi sitting at Sandur and order dated 15.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.185/2021 on the file of Civil Judge, Sandur granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. 2. The First Appellate Court on an appeal filed by the defendants dismissed the appeal. Hence, defendants are before this Court assailing the aforementioned two orders. 3. Both Courts have recorded a prima facie finding based on the entry in the record of right that, the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience is said to be in favour of the plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants would urge that the claim of the defendants is based on registered sale deed dated 19.11.1974. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17389 WP No. 109225 of 2025 5. It is also noticed that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have held that there is one more registered sale deed dated 12.05.1969 in the name of husband of plaintiff No.1. 6. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the aforementioned impugned orders cannot be interfered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reasons: a. The finding recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are only tentative findings. b. They are not the final authoritative findings relating to the claim of either of the parties. c. The claim of the plaintiffs and the claim of the defendants have to be decided based on the evidence to be produced before the Trial Court during the trial. 7. Despite concurrent findings on application seeking temporary injunction, the Court has to decide the suit without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court as the said orders are only tentative findings recorded without reflecting - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17389 WP No. 109225 of 2025 anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties relating to their right and possession. 8. Under these circumstances, following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. The observations made in the interim order passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court should not be construed as having reflected anything on the merits of the matter and they should not influence the final disposal of the suit. iii. All contentions kept open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 33