- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28328 W.P. No.9757/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.9757/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HANUMANAIKA D/O LATE SRI. GOVINDANAIKA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 2. SRI. TEJANAIKA S/O LATE SRI. GOVINDANAIKA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT : D. MEDEKERIPURA VILLAGE BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 519. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADV., FOR SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. HANUMAPPA S/O SRI. BOMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. SRI. SHEKARAPPA S/O SRI. BOMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O SRI. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28328 W.P. No.9757/2021 4. SRI. NAGENDRAPPA S/O SRI. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 5. SRI. MAHANTESH S/O SRI. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 6. SRI. OBALAPPA S/O SRI. GADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 7. SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O SRI. GADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT : D. MEDEKERIPURA VILLAGE BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 519. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. ASHOK KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1 TO R6 R7 RUDRAPPA SD AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.02.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN M.A.NO.5/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE MA NO.5/2020 PASSED BY THE DEFENDANTS UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28328 W.P. No.9757/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2021 passed in M.A.No.5/2020 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.167/2019 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga for short, ‘the trial Court’) for the relief of declaration that the petitioners-plaintiffs are the absolute joint owners and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and further relief of permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants from interference with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28328 W.P. No.9757/2021 an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.25/1 measuring 3.02 acres situated at D.Medekeripura Village, Bharamasagara Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk. The defendants have filed a detailed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the defendants during the pendency of the said suit. The trial Court, considering the pleading and material placed on record, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case with regard to the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and granted temporary injunction. However, the Appellate Court in M.A.No.5/2020 reversed the order of the trial Court by appreciating the defendants’ contention in the written statement that the land in Sy.No.25 consists of 12 acres 6 guntas and out of which 3 acres 2 guntas is the suit schedule property which is sold by the plaintiffs in favour of Smt.Geetha D/o. Vijaya Prakash to an extent of 1 acre 21 guntas, which is numbered as Sy.No.25/2, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28328 W.P. No.9757/2021 1 acre 21 guntas in favour of Smt.Geetha W/o. Pramod Deshpande, which is Sy.No.25/3. The Appellate Court included the properties sold with the remaining properties and recorded the finding that both the properties tally to an extent of 12 acre 6 guntas. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs is that the defendants have made vague assertion in the written statement without furnishing any material particulars with regard to the alleged sale of the suit schedule property. The defendants have only furnished the names of two persons and said that the plaintiffs have sold the property and based on a bald statement without material particulars, the Appellate Court ought not have to reversed the finding. It is to be noticed that the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in the suit that the total extent of the land in Sy.No.25 is 12 acres and 6 guntas and the father of the defendants has sold 3 acres 2 guntas in favour of the father of the plaintiffs vide registered sale deed dated 25.02.1961 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28328 W.P. No.9757/2021 after the death of the father of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs came to know that some illegal entries have come in respect of the suit schedule property in the revenue records. Hence, they have filed the suit for declaration as well as injunction against the defendants by specifically contenting that they are the successors of Govindanaika, who was the father of the plaintiffs who purchased the property, and they are in possession of property. The Appellate Court, without any material before it, based on the assertion in the written statement, has jumped to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have sold the properties in favour of Smt.Geetha D/o. Vijaya Prakash to an extent of 1 acre 21 guntas and another piece of land to an extent of 1 acre 21 guntas in favour of Smt.Geetha W/o. Pramod Deshpande, in my considered view, the said finding of the Appellate Court is based only on the written statement may not be correct. 5. It is to be noticed that the plaintiffs have produced the RTC which indicates that the suit schedule - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28328 W.P. No.9757/2021 property was standing in the name of the father of the plaintiffs and a specific assertion is made that after the death of the father of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In my considered view, the plaintiffs have made out the prima facie case based on the revenue documents with regard to possession and balance of convenience is in their favour and interest of justice would be met if the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The plaintiffs and the defendants in O.S.No.167/2019 are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit by the trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28328 W.P. No.9757/2021 iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28