- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29762 W.P. No.8738/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.8738/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SOMASHEKHAR .D S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NEW ANTHARASANAHALLI KEB ROAD, OPP TO G R R R PETROL BUNK TUMKUR -572 106. 2. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NAVILEHALLI SWANDENAHALLI POST TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANIKETAN S, ADV., FOR SRI. RAVI H.K. ADV.,) AND: SRI. N.R. RAVEESH S/O RANGADHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT WARD No.28, SATHYAMANGALA MAJARE, NAVELEHALLI TUMKUR-572 106. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GANAPATHI S. SHASTRI, ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29762 W.P. No.8738/2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DTD 26.03.2022 IN M.A.NO.46/2019 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKUR AS PER ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 26.03.2022 passed in M.A.No.46/2019 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Tumakuru (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Aniketan S., learned counsel for Sri.Ravi H.K., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ganpathi S.Shastri, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.189/2019 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru (for short, ‘the trial Court’) against the petitioners herein for the relief of permanent injunction - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29762 W.P. No.8738/2022 contending that the grandmother of the respondent- plaintiff had executed the gift deed dated 30.01.2015 in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit schedule property and thereafter the revenue records were mutated in the name of the plaintiff and he is paying the taxes and he is in physical possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 20.11.2019. The plaintiff assailed the order of the trial Court before the Appellate Court in M.A.46/2019. The Appellate Court, under the impugned order, set aside the order of the trial Court dated 20.11.2019 passed on I.A. filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and granted temporary injunction against the petitioners-defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29762 W.P. No.8738/2022 4. It is to be noticed that the order of the Appellate Court is assailed in the present petition and this Court has ordered the parties to maintain status quo, which is in force. The primary contention of the petitioners-defendants is that the identification of the suit schedule property is in dispute. As per the gift deed and the revenue records placed by the plaintiff himself, there is a discrepancy and a specific assertion is made by the defendants that there is cloud over the title of the plaintiff. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court has rejected the application for temporary injunction. However, the Appellate Court, though accepted the fact that there is a discrepancy with regard to the boundaries, proceeded to grant temporary injunction. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has placed sufficient material before the Court below which has been appreciated by the Appellate Court and has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has title and possession over the suit schedule - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29762 W.P. No.8738/2022 property based on the gift deed and the revenue records placed before it. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 6. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff has placed a gift deed dated 30.01.2015 and also placed Form No.3 and Form No.15 to substantiate his title as well as possession over the suit schedule property. Though the same is denied by the defendants in the written statement and contended that there is a discrepancy with regard to the boundaries if those documents are perused. Considering these aspects, the Appellate Court has recorded the finding that the suit schedule property is a vacant site and insofar as the interest of the plaintiff is concerned, irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted and has recorded the finding that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and proceeded to order for temporary injunction. It is to be noticed that when the petitioners-defendants are categorically contending that there is a serious boundary dispute with regard to the suit schedule property, in my - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29762 W.P. No.8738/2022 considered view the said aspect is required to be adjudicated before the Civil Court by cogent and acceptable evidence by the parties to the suit. Hence, it would be appropriate if the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to their possession over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is disposed of by directing the plaintiff as well as the defendants to maintain status quo with regard to the possession as on this day till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.189/2019 by the trial Court. 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.: 30