- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14563 WP No. 103182 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 103182 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SUBHASAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA VADDAR, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALENIDANEGILU, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 111. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TIMMAPPA S/O. GURUVAPPA VADDAR, AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. HALENIDANEGILU, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 111. 2. SINDUR S/O. SIDDAPPA VADDAR, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. HALENIDANEGILU, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 111. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) 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 QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19-04-2025 IN M.A. NO.6/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14563 WP No. 103182 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.6/2024 wherein the Appellate Court vacated the temporary injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff, who is the petitioner before this Court. 2. The suit is for bare injunction. The plaintiff claims that his father purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 07.10.1975. 3. The defendants contend that the plaintiff is the son of one Tippanna, who is the first husband of Timmakka and defendants claim that they are the descendants of Timmakka from Timmakka's second husband Guruvappa. It is further contended by the defendants that Guruvappa purchased the property in the name of the Tippanna. Thus, it is a joint family property. 4. To substantiate the contention that the defendants are in joint possession of the property, the defendants - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14563 WP No. 103182 of 2025 relied on the property records pertaining to residential house where it is noticed that the residential house is divided into two divisions. One portion reflects the name of the plaintiff and another portion reflects the name of the defendants. The suit is not in respect of the residential house. 5. The Trial Court granted injunction based on the registered sale deed in the name of the plaintiff’s father and the Record of Right stands in the name of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding accepting the affidavits filed before it which are said to be the affidavits of adjoining owners who stated that the suit property is divided into three parts and parties are enjoying the property separately as per the division. 6. This Court is of the view that First Appellate Court could not have taken a different view from what is taken by the Trial Court as the Trial Court's view is prima facie tenable as it is based on registered sale deed of the year - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14563 WP No. 103182 of 2025 1975 and the property records standing in the name of the plaintiff. 7. The well settled position of law is that merely because the First Appellate Court finds that one more view is possible, it is not a ground to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court has taken a different view by relying on the property records pertaining to the residential house which is not the subject matter of the suit. 8. Whether the property was at one point of time a joint family property, whether it was purchased by Guruvappa in the name of Tippanna and thereafter there was further division among the family members, are all the matters required to be considered after recording the evidence by both sides. 9. At this stage of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Court should not have interfered with the finding of the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14563 WP No. 103182 of 2025 10. However, it is required to be noticed that the Trial Court has granted the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. This view is only a tentative view. It may change or may not change based on the evidence to be adduced by the parties. 11. However, in case the defendants succeed before the Trial Court in establishing the fact that the suit property was treated as a joint family property and later divided, the plaintiff has to account for the profit which he has derived because of the protection granted in terms of the interim order. Hence, every year till the disposal of the suit the plaintiff has to furnish the details of the crop grown, the quantity of the crop grown, the value of the crop grown, and the expenditure incurred in cultivating the properties. In case the defendants succeed in establishing that the property is the joint family property which was later divided, then the plaintiff has to account for the profits. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14563 WP No. 103182 of 2025 12. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is set aside. (iii) The Trial Court's order is restored with a rider that the plaintiff has to furnish the accounts as stated above every year on or before 31st of March. (iv) It is made clear that the observations made here are only tentative observations. The Trial Court shall decide the suit on merit without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order passed by the Appellate Court or by this Court. (v) Both parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the suit. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NAA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37