- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.31670/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. THIPPAIAH S/O LATE SUNNA CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT KENGAIAHNAHATTI GIRIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE TALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. THIPPESHAPPA S/O LATE MEKE CHENNAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 2. SRI. KENGAIAH S/O LATE HAVULA CHENNAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR'S. 2(a) CHITHAMMA W/O LATE KENGAIAIH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2(b) BORAMMA D/O LATE KENGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 2(c) CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 2(d) BUDABORA S/O LATE KENGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 2(e) SANNA CHANNAIAH S/O LATE KENGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2(f) RUDRAIAH S/O LATE KENGAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. GIRIYAMMNAHALLI KENGAIANAHATTI CHALLAKERE (T) CHITRADURGA-577522. 3. SRI. PATTAIAH S/O LATE HAVULA CHENNAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR'S. 3(a) BORAMMA W/O PATTAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 3(b) THIPPAIAH S/O LATE PATTAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3(c) KARE BORAIAH S/O LATE PATTAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 3(d) KYASAIAH S/O LATE PATTAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O. NANDIHALLI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DIST. 3(e) SANNA BORAIAH S/O LATE PATTAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT: KENAGAIAHALLI VILLAGE GIRIYAMMANAHALLI MAJURE TALUK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE (T) CHITRADURGA DIST. [AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 02.03.2026] 4. SMT. BORAMMA W/O LATE GUDUSU BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 5. SRI. CHENNAIAH S/O LATE GUDUSU BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 6. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 7. SRI. BORESH S/O LATE THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. 8. SMT. SHASHIKALA D/O LATE THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. 9. SMT. THIPPAMMA D/O LATE THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS. 10. SRI. KYASAIAH S/O LATE GUDUSU BORAIAH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 11. SRI. SANNA BORAIAH S/O LATE GUDUSU BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 12. SRI. CHANNAIAH S/O LATE RANGANA BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 13. SRI. THIPPAIAH S/O LATE RANGANA BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT KENGAIAHNAHATTI GIRIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE TALAKU HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 14. SMT. GUNDAMMA W/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 15. SRI. KESHWA S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. 16. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. 17. SMT. PAVITHRA D/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.14 TO 17 ARE RESIDING AT KENGAIAHNAHATTI GIRIYAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE TALAKU HOBLI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. ASHOK KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1, R2 (a to f), R4 R5, R10, R12 & R13 AND ALSO P'sd R3 (a to e) V/O/DTD:16.09.2019, NOTICE TO R14 TO R17 IS D/W R6 & R11 ARE SERVED V/O/DTD:06.02.2020, NOTICE TO R7, R8, R9 ARE H/S R2(a), R2(b), R2(c), R2(d), R2(e) ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE, CHALLAKERE IN MA NO.20 OF 2018 DATED 08.07.2019, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.07.2019 passed in M.A.No.20/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Challakere (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 2. Sri.B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.126/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru, (for short, ‘the trial Court’) for declaration and possession of suit ‘B’ schedule property and partition of suit ‘A’ schedule property. In the said suit, the trial Court granted the temporary injunction. However, the First Appellate Court, without any justifiable reasons, reversed the same solely on the ground that no temporary injunction can be granted against one of the co-parcener. It is submitted that the written objections filed by the respondents/defendants clearly indicates that they have no objection to use the cart track by the petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. It is further submitted that the order of the First Appellate Court is stayed by this Court on 13.08.2019 and the same is in force and the trial in the suit is concluded and proceedings are at the fag end. Hence, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition by continuing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 interim order granted by this Court by directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit. 3. Per contra, Sri.H.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2(A to F), 4, 5, 10, 12 & 13 and proposed respondent Nos.3(A to E) supports the impugned order and submits that way back in the year 2015 itself partition had taken place and the petitioner has no right whatsoever over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the respondents/defendants have filed objections to the application wherein it is categorically stated that they have no objection to the petitioner/plaintiff to use the cart track. However, instead of the plaintiff using the same, he is allowing others to use the said cart track, which was opposed by the defendants. It is further submitted that there cannot be an injunction against a co-sharer and in support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 of Eswaraiah vs. B.S.Siddalingappa & Others1. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.126/2018 for the relief of declaration and possession of the suit ‘B’ schedule property and partition of ‘A’ schedule property and other reliefs. The said suit is contested by the respondents. The petitioner has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking prayer to restrain the respondents/defendants or anybody claiming under them from interfering or obstructing the plaintiff to use the cart track from his house through trashing floor and hay stack and also to restrain them from obstructing him from taking water from the water tank in any way interfering with the peaceful possession of ‘B’ schedule property. The 1 ILR 1999 KAR 3037 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 respondents/defendants filed objections to the said application, wherein at para Nos.6 and 7 of the objections, the defendants have clearly stated that they have not obstructed the plaintiff from use of the cart track as contented in the application. The said statement and the objection clearly indicate that the plaintiff is using the said cart track from ages. 6. Insofar as the other contention of the respondents that the partition has taken place in the year 2015 and the plaintiff has no right to seek further partition is concerned, the same cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. The trial Court, considering the pleading and material available on record and considering the photographs placed, has recorded the finding that there was obstruction by the defendants to the plaintiff from using the cart track and the said finding is based on the pleading and evidence on record. The First Appellate Court, without appreciating the material on record and objections filed by the respondents, reversed the order of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 the trial Court. I am of the considered view that the approach of the First Appellate Court in recording the finding that there cannot be injunction against the co- sharer or co-parcener is perverse for the simple reason that the plaintiff is seeking to enforce his existing right which is being obstructed by the defendants. Hence, the said proposition that there cannot be injunction against the co-sharer has no application to the case on hand. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.07.2019 passed in M.A.No.20/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Challakere is hereby set aside. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible. It is needless to observe that the findings recorded by this Court are limited to the dispute in this petition and the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit on its - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25787 W.P. No.31670/2019 merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the findings recorded by this Court. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14