- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12669 WP No. 11975 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11975 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI H K MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE B KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDA THIGALARAPETE, HOSAKOTE TOWN - 562 114. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ALSO RESIDING AT OPP AVIMUKTHESWARA TEMPLE, NEAR SJSS KALYANA MANTAPA, SULIBELE ROAD, HOSAKOTE TOWN - 562 114. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A G NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(A) SRI P VIJAYAKUMAR SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT.HEMALATHA, W/O LATE P.VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, NEAR THIRUMALA CHOUTRY, MALUR TOWN, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12669 WP No. 11975 of 2019 KOLAR DISTRICT -563 130. 1(B) MASTER.ARUN THEJA V.H, S/O LATE P.VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, NEAR THIRUMALA CHOUTRY, MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT -563 130. (SINCE MINOR, HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SMT.HEMALATHA AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN ON HIS BEHALF.) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.N.MANOHAR, ADVOCATE; V/O/D 13.08.2025 NOTICE ON I.A.NO.1/2021 TO I.A.NO.3/2021 AND I.A.NO.1/2022 TO I.A.NO.4/2022 LR'S PF DECEASED RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 7.9.2018 PASSED IN M.A.NO.107/2017 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-A AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.8.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.126/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT HOSAKOTE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12669 WP No. 11975 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1. Quash the impugned orders dated 7/9/2018 passed in M.A No.107/2017 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District produced at Annexure-A and the impugned order dated: 17/8/2017 passed on I/A.No.1 in O.S No.126/2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Hosakote produced at Annexure 'B' by way of writ of certiorari. ア 2. Pass such other and further reliefs or necessary direction as deems fit to grant by this Hon'ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Sri.A.G.Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a suit for injunction and declaration of ownership and in the said suit the application is filed seeking for temporary injunction which came to be rejected and the same was affirmed by the Appellate Court under the impugned orders. It is submitted that one Sri.Munishamappa was the owner of 36 guntas of the land. He alienates two guntas of the land in favour of his daughter Smt.Lakshmidevi, from whom - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12669 WP No. 11975 of 2019 the petitioner purchased two guntas on 18.08.1995. Later the said extent was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. It is submitted that the children of Sri.Munishamappa without the knowledge of the petitioner, vendor Sri.Munishamappa got the properties partitioned under the registered partition deed dated 16.01.1964. He further submitted that the father of the vendor Sri.Munishamappa challenged the same partition in O.S.No.95/1993 and the suit came to be decreed by allotting the suit schedule property in favour of Sri.Munishamappa and held that the sale deed executed by him in favour of his daughter and his later sale deed in favour of the petitioner are valid. However, these aspects were not considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and proceeded to dismiss the application for temporary Injunction. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12669 WP No. 11975 of 2019 3. The notice issued to the respondent held sufficient vide order dated 13.08.2025 by this Court. Hence, there is no representation for others. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.126/2015 for a relief of permanent injuction. The suit schedule property in the plaint is shown as two guntas of the land in Sy.No.388/1 of Hosakote Village, Kasaba Hobali, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The plaint averments indicate that the said land is converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. It is to be noticed that the petitioner claims the title over the property under the registered sale deed dated 18.08.1995 through one Smt.Lakshmidevi. It is averred that Smt.Lakshmidevi has purchased two guntas of land from her father - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12669 WP No. 11975 of 2019 Sri.Munishamappa under the registered sale deed dated 11.04.1991. 6. The material on record would indicate that from the date of purchase i.e. 18.08.1995 the petitioner got the revenue records mutated in his name. It is also to be noticed that the children of Sri.Munishamappa got the property divided among themselves vide registered partition deed dated 16.01.1964 and the said partition deed was under challenge in O.S.No.95/1993 by Sri.Munishamappa. The said suit came to be decreed on 31.01.2005 and the same has attained finality. 7. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have mainly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 on the ground that the final decree proceedings in F.D.P.No.20/2005 is pending adjudication and till that is adjudicated, no interim protection can be provided by the petitioner. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12669 WP No. 11975 of 2019 8. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed grave error in recording such findings. It is to be noticed that the respondents in the present proceedings are not contesting and now the trial has already commenced. It is also to be noticed that this Court vide order dated 29.03.2019 has granted interim order by directing parties to maintain status quo as it exists today and the said interim order is in force till this day. 9. For the aforesaid reasons and keeping in mind the interim order granted by this Court, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the interim order granted by this Court is continued till disposal of the suit on merits. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ petition is allowed; ii. Orders dated 17.08.2017 and 07.09.2018 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.126/2015 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12669 WP No. 11975 of 2019 in M.A.No.107/2017 respectively are hereby set aside; iii. Consequently, I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.126/2015 filed by plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is allowed; iv. The parties are directed to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit; v. The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit on merits without being influenced by the finding recorded by this Court. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43