- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25999 WP No. 12757 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 12757 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE KEMPASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O SEEBI AGRAHARA VILLAGE - 572 125, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOVINDARAJA T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SIDDAGANGAIAH S/O LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT UMAPATHIHALLI VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI - 572 128, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU IN M.A.19/2025 DATED 18-02-2026 IN ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25999 WP No. 12757 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in M.A. No.19/2025 dated 18.02.2026 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit is before this Court. 2. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit has filed the suit for declaration of title that he is the owner of the suit scheduled property and also a consequential relief to set aside the registered Will dated 05.11.2018. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed IA No.1 seeking an order of temporary injunction, which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 03.04.2025. 3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No.1, the plaintiff preferred M.A. No.19/2025 before the District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted an order of temporary - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25999 WP No. 12757 of 2026 injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant submits that, the Appellate Court without recording any finding with regard to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, has granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that mainly on the grounds that the earlier suit was not contested by the defendants with regard to the relationship of the plaintiff with the testator and how the will is executed in favour of the plaintiff. That relationship is not mentioned and all these issues will be decided during the course of the trial and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for injunction. It is submitted that the Court without even giving any finding on prima facie case and other ingredients has granted injunction. It is submitted the order is liable to be side. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there cannot be a mini trial at the time of considering an application for temporary injunction. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has rightly considered the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25999 WP No. 12757 of 2026 relevant facts and circumstances of the case and has correctly held that the plaintiff is entitled for an order of injunction. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. This Court has gone through the order passed on the I.A.No.1 in the suit and also the order passed in the M.A.No.19/2025 by the Appellate Court. While dismissing the application for interim injunction, the Trial Court had observed that going through the documents from both sides as already discussed, it is crystal clear that the appeal preferred by one Narasappa s/o Bommanna in RRT.No.170/2021 before Additional Divisional Court, Madhugiri, has been disposed of and complaint dated 20.11.2019 filed by the defendant before the Kallambella Police Station, which is much prior to the institution of the suit itself reflects that in the year 2019 itself the defendant had given police complaint against the plaintiff which prima facie reflects that the defendant is in possession of the suit property, the revenue entries in respect of the suit property stands in the name of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25999 WP No. 12757 of 2026 defendant coupled with the tax pay receipts shows prime facie possession in favour of the defendant. 7. The Court came to the conclusion that the judgment and decree in O.S. No.30/2015, which itself is against the the plaintiff shows that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. Since the father of the plaintiff when he already declared as having no manner of right, title and interest over the suit property, transferring the right to the plaintiff by way of the Will deed, will not amount to having a prima facie case. It is the case of the plaintiff that he succeeded to the suit property by way of a registered Will executed by his father which itself is found contrary to the findings in the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.30/2015 and raise suspicion in execution of the unregistered Will dated 17.10.2022 in favour of the plaintiffs by the father of the plaintiff. Hence, the Court came to the conclusion that there is no prime facie case and the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Madhugiri, is found against the plaintiff and acknowledgement issued by the Kallambella police station in the year 2009, much prior to the dispute and Patta book and tax pay receipt reflects prima facie - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25999 WP No. 12757 of 2026 possession is in favour of the petitioner. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. Then when it comes to the order passed by the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court has not discussed anything with regard to the prime facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 8. The Appellate Court has only observed that the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the suit was not contested by the defendant either by cross examining PW1 and adducing evidence by producing documentary evidence. In the present case, the defendant nowhere mentioned the relationship with Ranganayaka to believe that the said Ranganayaka is a relative and she has taken care of Ranganayaka during his last days and due to love and affection he has executed the registered Will in her name on 05.11.2018. But the plaintiff has clearly mentioned that he is the son of Narasappa and his father has executed the unregistered Will in his name. Accordingly, the Court has granted injunction. This Court is not able to appreciate the findings of the Appellate Court. When the plaintiff has come before the Court seeking a particular relief, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25999 WP No. 12757 of 2026 case. Even when it comes to the interim injunction as sought for, he has to prima facie prove that he is possession of the property and the defendant is interfering with his possession. Unless, defendant is injuncted by an order of injunction, it would cause irreparable loss. In this case, while allowing M.A. No.19/2025, the appellate Court has not given any finding on how the plaintiff is entitled for injunction. Percontra, the Court has fastened the burden on the defendant. Hence, in the considered opinion of the Court, this Order passed in M.A. No.19/2025 dated 18.02.2026, needs to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this Court is passing in the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed in M.A. No.19/2025 dated 18.02.2026 by the II Additional district and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru. ii. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25999 WP No. 12757 of 2026 iii. The Appellate Court shall consider the M.A. No.19/2025 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. iv. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. v. All IA’s in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5