- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31770 WP No. 20808 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20808 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. KONDAJJARA NAGARAJA S/O TIPPAYYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O JAGALURU GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, JAGALURU TALLUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 002. 2. DEVARAJA S/O SMT.PREMA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. R/A ANABURU VILLAGE, JAGALURU TALLUK DAVANAGERE DSTRICT – 577 002. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT.SARVAMANGALA CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.T.BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O JAGALURU GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31770 WP No. 20808 of 2025 JAGALURU TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 002. …RESPONDENT THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19-06-2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ITINERARY COURT AT JAGALURU IN M.A. NO.23/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23-08-2024, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT JAGALUR ON I.A. NO.2 IN O.S NO.76/2022, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners – defendants are before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.06.2025, passed by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Itinerary Court at Jagaluru, in M.A.No.23/2024, whereby, affirming the order dated 23.08.2024, passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Jagalur, allowing an application – I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31770 WP No. 20808 of 2025 Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, filed by the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction. 2. The petitioners are the unsuccessful defendants before the first appellate Court in M.A.No.23/2024. The reasons rendered by the first appellate Court to reject the appeal and confirming the order of the trial Court read as follows: “3. The brief facts of the plaintiff case are as under: The father-in-law of the plaintiff by name Karipalaiah had 4 sons and while existence of joint family the property was granted in favour of Palaiah on 15.05.1988 and issued Hakku Patra in his name. After discussion and mutual understanding among the members of joint family and upon the demise of plaintiff's husband Gopalappa and beneficiary Palaiah the property was transferred in the name of plaintiff vide Panchayath Resolution No.49 dated 25.07.2017. Since then plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of peaceful possession of property. On 09.03.2022 the plaintiff attempted to the clean the property at that time the defendants unlawfully obstructed the possession of plaintiff. The defendants are very powerful persons in the locality and their illegal acts cannot be resisted without the aid of this court. Hence, this suit. 4. After service of summons the defendants have filed their written statement by denying the plaint averments and specifically contended that the plaintiff has filed the present suit without cause of action. The boundaries in the plaint are not correct and the land bearing Sy.No.15/6, Sy.No.15/7, Sy.No.15/8, Sy.No.15/9 are belongs to 1st defendant family. The plaintiff has filed the present suit based on the created Hakku Patra. The plaintiff by colluding with the official of Hanamanthapur Panchayath created false documents and falsely claiming right over the suit scheduled property. Therefore the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31770 WP No. 20808 of 2025 plaintiff is not entitled for the relief. On these grounds the defendants pray to dismiss the suit. 5. After hearing of the arguments and on perusal of materials available on record the trial court has answered point No.1 to 3 in the affirmative and restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The appellants have challenged the orders of trial court on the following grounds. (a) The order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.ll is opposed to law and facts and circumstances the case. Hence, liable to be set aside. (b) The order of the Trial Court is against to the principles of natural justice facts and preponderance of probabilities of the case and hence, liable to be set aside. (c) The order passed by the Trial Court is based on the guess work and hence liable to be set aside. (d) The Trial Court has failed to consider case of the defendants and come to the wrong conclusion and allowed the application filed by the plaintiff. Hence liable to be set aside. (e) The Trial Court has erred in accepting the documents produced by the plaintiffs and erroneously allowed the application and restrained the defendants from causing obstruction to be plaintiff possession. (f) The order passed by the Trial Court is imaginary one and failed to consider the defence taken by the defendants and erroneously application. 6. The respondent/plaintiff remained absent before the court. 7. Heard arguments and perused the materials available on record. 8. The following points that arise for my consideration:- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31770 WP No. 20808 of 2025 1. Whether the trial court has erred in appreciating the documents relied by the appellants in prospective in manner and erroneously allowed the application filed by the plaintiff? 2. Whether the order passed by the trial court is illegal, perverse, capricious and against to the principles of law and needs interference by this court? 3. What order? 9. My findings to the above points are as under:- Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:- REASONS 10. Point No.1 and 2: Both points are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts. In order to prove the prima-facie case, the plaintiff has produced the copy of Hakku Patra, E-Khatha and Tax paid receipts before the court. 11. It is contention of the defendants that the suit schedule property is not in existence. The Panchayath never acquired the land to form the sites. The defendants have produced the copy of W.P.No.6754/2022 before the court. On perusal of the said order it is crystal clear that liberty was granted to the defendant No.1 to make appropriate representation before the consent authorities seeking appropriate relief. 12. On perusal of the documents relied upon the plaintiff it is crystal clear that she is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31770 WP No. 20808 of 2025 13. It is well settled principle of law that at the time of considering the application filed U/O.39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C the court cannot conduct mini trial. While considering the application U/O. 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C the court must see the irreparable loss and hardship. The trial court after considering all the materials available on record has rightly come to the conclusion that plaintiff has proved the prima-facie case and balance of convenience lies in her favour. At this juncture it is worth to refer the judgment reported in 1997 SCC Online KAR 597 between Basavaraj Shivaramagouda Patil V/s Mahesh. The Hon'ble High of Karnataka held as under: Petitioner who was allegedly in possession of the disputed plot under the terms of the agreement of sell filed a suit for injunction and also obtained a Temporary injunction which was set aside in appeal filed by the defendant. HELD- The Appellate Court exceeded, its powers in vacating the Temporary injunction ignoring the cardinal principle that the Appellate Court should not lightly interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial court. 14. The ratio laid down in the above decision is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case on hand. The plaintiff has proved the prima-facie case and balance of convenience is lies in her favour. The trial court rightly allowed the application filed by the plaintiff by restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction with the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, I find no infirmity with the orders of the trial court. Hence, interference by this court is unwarranted. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative. 15. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:- : O R D E R : The appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C is hereby dismissed with cost. The impugned order dated 23.08.2024 passed in O.S.No.76/2022 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Jagaluru on I.A.No.II is hereby confirmed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31770 WP No. 20808 of 2025 Transmit the copy of the order to trail court.” In the light of the well reasoned judgment of the first appellate Court, I do not find any error or perversity in the judgment passed by the first appellate Court confirming the order passed by the concerned trial Court. 3. Finding no merit in the writ petition, reserving liberty to urge all the contentions before the concerned Court at appropriate stage by the petitioners, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 121