- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:526 WP No. 200829 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.200829 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NARSAPPA S/O EDEPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. NAGAPPA S/O JAMBAYYA, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. THIMAPPA S/O YELLAMMA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. NARSIMHLU S/O HANUMANTHU, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O BAPUR VILLAGE, RAICHUR, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. HULIGAMMA W/O YERRANNA SAVARI, SINCE DEAD BY LRS., SMT. KODAMANI PADMAMMMA D/O LATE HULIGAMMA W/O YERRA SAVARI, Digitally signed by SACHIN Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:526 WP No. 200829 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O VEERAPURAM, GADWAL MANDAL, DIST. MAHBUBNAGAR, TQ: TELANGANA STATE-509 125. 2. SMT. GOLLA SAVARAMMA D/O LATE HULIGAMMA W/O GOVINDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O VEERAPURAM GADWAL MANDAL, DIST: MAHBUBNAGAR, TELANGANA STATE-509 125. 3. SMT. GOLLA ANUSUYAMMA D/O LATE HULIGAMMA W/O PEDDA SAVARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O VEERAPURAM, GADWAL MANDAL, DIST: MAHBUBNAGAR, TELANGANA STATE-509 125. 4. SRI. GOVINDU S/O SAVARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BAPUR VILLAGE, RAICHUR, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584 106. 5. SMT. YENKAMMA W/O SAVARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BAPUR VILLAGE, RAICHUR, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:526 WP No. 200829 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2023, PASSED IN O.S. NO.121/2016, BY THE C/C III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAICHUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/O XIV RULE 5 READ WITH 151 OF THE CPC, IN IA NO.6. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER Defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 in O.S. No.121/2016 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur are before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 17.01.2023, by which, an application - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:526 WP No. 200829 of 2023 filed by them under Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. 2. The suit in O.S.No.121/2016 was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff to the suit properties and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff contended that the suit property belonged to her ancestors. She contended that a Tobacco company was established at Yemmiganoor and therefore, her father and grandfather migrated to Yemmiganoor. While leaving the village, they asked defendant Nos.3 to 6 to cultivate the suit lands and to share the crops. Defendant Nos.3 to 6 were therefore cultivating the suit properties with the permission of the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed defendant Nos.1 and 2 were strangers and were not concerned with the suit properties in any manner whatsoever. The plaintiff claimed that defendant Nos.1 and 2 got the revenue records transferred to their names, claiming to be the legal heirs of the father of the plaintiff and thereafter brought about several revenue records. The plaintiff - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:526 WP No. 200829 of 2023 therefore claimed that she is entitled to a declaration that she is the owner of the suit properties and for eviction of the defendants from the suit properties and for rectification of the revenue records. 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit and laid a claim to the suit properties and denied the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.3 to 6 admitted that they were in permissive possession of the suit properties. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has acquired the right of ownership over the suit properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of possession of the suit properties from defendants? 3. Whether the defendant proves that suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff is proper and correct? 5. What decree or order?” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:526 WP No. 200829 of 2023 4. Later, defendant Nos.3 to 6 filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC suggesting an additional issue, which is as follows. “Whether defendant No.3 to 6 proves that they are in possession of suit lands with the permissive possession of the plaintiff.” 5. This application was contested by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, consequent to which, the Trial Court rejected the application in terms of the impugned order, on the ground that defendant Nos.3 to 6 had prayed to decree the suit and hence the additional issue suggested by them does not arise. Being aggrieved by said order, defendant Nos.3 to 6 are before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.3 to 6 contends that it was incumbent upon the Court to frame an issue as to whether defendant Nos.3 to 6 were in permissive possession of the suit properties or not. He submits that since the Trial Court failed to frame an issue, defendant Nos.3 to 6 were forced to file an application. He contends that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had disputed the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:526 WP No. 200829 of 2023 claim of the plaintiff and therefore, the Court must have scanned the statement filed by defendant Nos.3 to 6 and must have framed an issue about the nature of possession of defendant Nos.3 to 6 so as to non-suit defendant Nos.1 and 2. 7. The legal heirs of deceased plaintiff, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this writ petition, though served with the notice of this petition, have not appeared. 8. An issue of fact or law arises when each material proposition is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. In the case on hand, the plaintiff asserted that defendant Nos.3 to 6 were in permissive possession of the suit properties and the defendant Nos.3 to 6 also admitted it in their written statement that they were in permissive possession of the suit properties. Therefore, the question whether they were in permissive possession of the suit properties or not did not arise, as defendant - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:526 WP No. 200829 of 2023 Nos.3 to 6 had admitted it. The Trial Court has therefore rightly held that the additional issue suggested by defendant Nos.3 to 6 does not arise for consideration. Under the circumstances, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54