Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 89886 (KAR)

SMT. SOMBAMMA, v. SRI T N SUDHINDRA

WP/23404/2024 · 2025-09-15

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37162 WP No. 23404 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23404 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SOMBAMMA, D/O LATE MUNITHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SRI. RAJAPPA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. SMT. MANJULAMMA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 5. SRI. PAPANNA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 6. SRI. MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT KUDULU VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT- 560 068 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37162 WP No. 23404 of 2024 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SWAMY N B N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI T N SUDHINDRA SON OF LATE T.L.RAJAGOPALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.001, GROUND FLOOR, GANGOTRI, SAPTHAGIRI PEARL,8TH MAIN NAGAPPA LAYOUT, VANTHAPURA, BANGALORE -560 061 REPRESENTED BY HIS SON AND GPA HOLDER SRI. HARSHA SUDHINDRA …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 08.07.2024 IN IA NO.1 IN OS NO. 93/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL VIDE ANNEXURE-LCONSEQUENTIALLY TO DECLARE THAT THE SUIT SCHEDULE SITE DOES NOT FORM PART OF SURVEY NO. 28 OF KUDULU VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37162 WP No. 23404 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The averment in the petition is, by the impugned order after hearing both the parties, the concerned Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and not a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 359