- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.16433/2021 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.16444/2021 (GM-CPC) IN W.P. No.16433/2021: BETWEEN: SRI. M. VENKATANARAYANA S/O LATE PATEL MUNISHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT. INDLAVADIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK 562106 BANGALORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.A. VISWANATHA REDDY, ADV.,) AND: SRI. A. MAHESH S/O LATE AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT INDALAWADIPURA VILLAGE THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI POST ANEKAL TALUK 562106 BANGALORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P, ADV., FOR C/R) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.8.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL IN MA.NO.27/2001 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NOS.1 AND 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC. IN W.P. NO.16444/2021: BETWEEN: SRI. M. VENKATANARAYANA S/O LATE PATEL MUNISHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT. INDLAVADIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK 562106 BANGALORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.A. VISWANATHA REDDY, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT INDALAWADIPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK 562106 BANGALORE DISTRICT. 2. SRI. GANGADHARA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 3. SMT. CHAITRA D/O LATE PARVATHAMMA .A AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. 4. SMT. CHITRA D/O LATE PARVATHAMMA .A - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT NO. 64/1 GURURAJ LAYOUT BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE 560085. 5. SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE SRI. AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.20/2, 2ND MAIN 34TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE 560010. 6. SMT. PUSHPA MANJUNATH D/O LATE SRI. AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.140, KALKERY AHYALM (P) KODIYALAM SARAGAPALLI KRISHNAGIRI TAMIL NADU 635114. 7. SMT. A. JAYANTHI D/O LATE AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.47/1, MALLENHALLI BIDARAGUPPE, ATTIBELE ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE 562107. 8. SMT. A. GEETHA D/O LATE AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. DODDAHAGADE VILLAGE BYAGADADENAHALLI POST ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE 562106. 9. SRI. A. MAHESH S/O LATE AVALAPPA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT. INDALAWADIPURA VILLAGE THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI POST ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE 562106. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P, ADV., FOR C/R9 AND ALSO VK FILED FOR R1 TO R9) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL IN M.A.NO.26/2001 ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NOS 1 AND 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER WP.No.16433/2021 is filed challenging the order dated 21.08.2021 passed in MA.No.27/2001 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. WP.No.16444/2021 is filed challenging the order dated 21.08.2021 passed in MA.No.26/2001 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (for short ‘the Appellate Court’). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 2. Sri.G.A.Vishwanatha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.395/2020 seeking bare injunction against the respondents herein as they were disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court granted temporary injunction and later, after hearing both sides, allowed the application by rejecting the application filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. The defendants challenged the order of the trial Court before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court, without appreciating the material placed on record in its proper perspective, proceeded to allow the appeals. It is submitted that this Court while issuing the notice directed the parties to maintain status quo, which order has been in operation till date. It is further submitted that the land - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 in question originally belonged to Sri.Chikkabyrappa and he executed a Will in favour of his daughter Smt.Chinnamma in respect of 5 acre 18 guntas. Under the said Will, a specific covenant is that 2 acres 30 guntas was donated to Eshwara Swami Devaru temple, 2 acres 10 guntas was bequeathed in favour of Smt.Chinnamma, and 20 guntas in favour of one Sri.Narayanappa. It is also submitted that the petitioner's father was a tenant in respect of 2 acre 30 guntas, which is suit schedule property. The petitioner filed an application before the Land Tribunal seeking grant of occupancy rights and the Land Tribunal rejected the said application on technical grounds, which was assailed in the writ proceedings, which came to be allowed and the matter was remitted back and the application of the petitioner for grant of land is pending consideration before the authority. 3. It is contented that in the meanwhile, Smt.Chinnamma executed a Will in favour of Sri.Avalappa to the entire extent, which she was not having a right to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 do so and based on such Will, revenue records were mutated in the name of Sri.Avalappa, which was challenged by the petitioner and later set aside. It is further contended that till the application of the petitioner for grant of tenancy is considered and he being in possession for more than 40 years, is required to be protected till the adjudication of the application for tenancy, which has been rightly appreciated by the trial Court and granted temporary injunction against the defendants. However, the Appellate Court, ignoring all these facts, proceeded to reverse. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.Basavaraju P., learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned orders of the Appellate Court and submits that the defendants in suit have seriously disputed the alleged Will executed by Sri.Chikkabyrappa. Smt.Chinnamma being the daughter of Sri.Chikkabyrappa, had every right to deal with the property to the entire extent and executed a Will - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 in the year 1988 in favour of Sri.Avalappa, who was in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that suit filed by the petitioner seeking injunction itself is not maintainable, as the dispute is purely relating to tenancy rights as per the pleadings of the plaint. Therefore, no injunction could have been granted in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record. 6. The material available on record indicates that the petitioner has filed OS.No.395/2020 in the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal seeking relief of injunction against the respondents herein. The premise in which the suit is filed is that the father of the petitioner/plaintiff was a tenant in respect of 2 acres 30 guntas of land which is suit schedule property under the Eswara Swami Devaru temple. The original owner of the total extent of land - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 measuring 5 acre 18 guntas was Sri.Chikkabyrappa and he has donated 2 acre 30 guntas in favour of the temple. The records indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff’s application for tenancy is pending before the authorities. Insofar as the possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property is concerned, the trial Court considering the rival contentions and taking note of the fact that the application for a tenancy is pending and the petitioner/plaintiff claims to be a tenant to the extent of 2 acres 30 guntas which is suit schedule property, granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession. Now the defendants are contending that by virtue of the Will executed by Smt.Chinnamma in favour of Sri.Avalappa the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 7. Be that as it may, it is to be noticed that the order of status quo granted by this Court vide Order 29.09.2021 is in operation till today and the suit is pending before the trial Court from 2020. In my - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 considered view, without recording any finding with regard to the rights of the parties, the interest of justice would be met if the interim order of status quo granted by this Court on 29.09.2021 is continued till disposal of the suit. With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petitions are disposed of. ii. The parties to the suit are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession as on this day till disposal of the suit. iii. It is made clear that the trial Court shall dispose of the suit on its merit without being influenced by the finding recorded either by the Appellate Court or by this Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26810 W.P. No.16433/2021 C/W W.P. No.16444/2021 iv. The contention with regard to the maintainability of the suit can be always raised before the trial Court by the defendants. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26