Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20327 (KAR)

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA v. SRI K SRINIVASAIAH

WP/15626/2026 · 2026-06-03

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26054 WP No. 15626 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. 15626 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE THIRUMALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT K.G.SRINIVASAPURA SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 562 111 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYARAJ D.S., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI K.SRINIVASAIAH S/O SRI KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 439 13TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, 1ST PHASE, MANJUNATHA NAGAR WEST OF CHORD ROAD BENGALURU – 560 010 …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OS NO. 172/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26054 WP No. 15626 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court questioning the order of the trial Court in issuing notice returnable by 02.06.2026 instead of granting ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the property right from 1967 and the defendant is asserting his title to the property basing on alleged sale deed executed by the petitioner dated 02.05.2011. It is submitted that it is a forged document. The other revenue records show the possession of the petitioner and the trial Court ought to have granted injunction. Without granting the same, notice was issued. In the meantime, if the defendant is successful in dispossessing the petitioner, it will cause a lot of hardship. 3. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Considering the dispute between the parties, where according to the petitioner he is the owner of the property and according to the defendant, plaintiff himself has executed a sale deed in the year 2011 which - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26054 WP No. 15626 of 2026 pertains to agricultural land. Considering this the Court has rightly issued a notice without granting an ad interim injunction. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the matter is coming up on 02.07.2026. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter at this juncture. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of directing the trial Court to consider IA No.I filed by the petitioner on 02.07.2026. ii. This Court is not issuing notice to the respondents as no adverse order is passed against them. iii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16