- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12674/2020 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.12672/2020 (GM-CPC) IN W.P. No.12674/2020: BETWEEN: NARAYANA S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA @ KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.56 JANJAR NO.48 MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURURAJ R, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA @ KEMPAIAH W/O KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT HIRIDEVAMMA BADAVANE BELAGOLA VILLAGE POST AND HOBLI SRIRANGA PATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438. 2. SMT. PUTTAMMA D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA @ KEMPAIAH W/O EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 R/AT NO.5, POST OFFICE ROAD KUMBAR KOPPALU, MYSURU-570001. 3. 3(a) 3(b) 3(c) 3(d) 3(e) 3(f) SMT. MAHALAKSHMI D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA @ KEMPAIAH W/O SOMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT SY.NO.272/1, HEBBAL VILLAGE MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU KATTEHOSURU, MYSURU-570001. REP. BY THEIR SPECIAL GPA HOLDER SMT. GEETHA W/O VIJAY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.1063/88, 7TH CROSS SEWAGE FORM ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU-570001 BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SWAMY GOWDA S/O LATE SINGRE GOWDA H/O LATE MAHALAKSHMI R/AT. SY.NO.272/1, HEBBAL VILLAGE MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU KATTEHOSURU, MYSURU-01. SMT. S. GOWRI D/O SWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. SMT. VIJAYA D/O SWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. RAGHU S/O SWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. TULASI D/O SWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. SMT. VASANTH D/O SWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 ALL ARE ABOVE R/AT. SY.NO.272/1, HEBBAL VILLAGE MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU KATTEHOSURU, MYSURU-570001. AMENDED CARRIED AS PER COURT ORDER AT 23.02.2026. 4. MAHADEVU S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA @ KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT KATTEHOSURU VILLAGE MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. 5. SMT. PREMA W/O SRI. MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. NO.27, 3RD CROSS KUMBARA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. 6. NAGARAJU S/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS KUMBARA KOPPALU, MYSURU-570001. 7. SHILPA D/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS KUMBARA KOPPALU, MYSURU-570001. 8. RAGHU S/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS KUMBARA KOPPALU, MYSURU-570001. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 9. SMT. BABY W/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KATTEHOSURU MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. 10. SMT. LATHA D/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT KATTEHOSURU MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEK B.N. ADV., FOR SRI. ABHINAV R, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. T.J. RAGHU, ADV., FOR R3 (B, C, E & F) R3 (A AND D), R4, R5, R9 AND R10 ARE SD AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:08.06.2026, NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 IS H/S) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.14.8.2020 PASSED ON MA NO.14/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU AS PER ANNEXURE-G. DIRECT THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE TO DISPOSE OF IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF THE PLAINT IN VIEW OF JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN RFA NO.1717/2013 & ETC. IN W.P. NO.12672/2020: BETWEEN: NARAYANA S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA @ KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.56, JANJAR NO.48 MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURURAJ R, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA @ KEMPAIAH W/O KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT HIRIDEVAMMA BADAVANE BELAGOLA VILLAGE POST AND HOBLI SRIRANGA PATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438. 2. SMT. PUTTAMMA D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA @ KEMPAIAH W/O EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.5, POST OFFICE ROAD KUMBAR KOPPALU, MYSURU-570001. 3. 3(a) SMT. MAHALAKSHMI D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA @ KEMPAIAH W/O SOMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT SY.NO.272/1, HEBBAL VILLAGE MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU KATTEHOSURU, MYSURU-570001. REP. BY THEIR SPECIAL GPA HOLDER SMT. GEETHA W/O VIJAY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.1063/88, 7TH CROSS SEWAGE FORM ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU-570001 BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SWAMY GOWDA S/O LATE SINGRE GOWDA H/O LATE MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 3(b) 3(c) 3(d) 3(e) 3(f) SMT. S. GOWRI D/O MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. SMT. VIJAYA D/O MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. SRI. RAGHU S/O LATE MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. TULASI D/O MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. SMT. VASANTH D/O MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. SY.NO.272/1, HEBBAL VILLAGE MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU KATTEHOSURU, MYSURU-570001. AMENDED CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER AT 23.02.2026. 4. MAHADEVU S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA @ KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT KATTEHOSURU VILLAGE MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. 5. SMT. PREMA W/O SRI. MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS KUMBARA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. 6. NAGARAJU S/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS KUMBARA KOPPALU - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 MYSURU-570001. 7. SHILPA D/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS KUMBARA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. 8. RAGHU S/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS KUMBARA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. 9. SMT. BABY W/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KATTEHOSURU MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. 10. SMT. LATHA D/O MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT KATTEHOSURU MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU MYSURU-570001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEK B.N. ADV., FOR SRI. ABHINAV R, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. T.J. RAGHU, ADV., FOR R3 (B, C, E AND F) R3 (A AND D), R4, R5, R9 AND R10 ARE SD AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:08.06.2026, NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 IS H/S) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.5.10.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.8 IN - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 O.S.NO.352/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MYSURU AS PER ANNEXURE- M & ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER W.P.No.12674/2020 is filed challenging the order dated 14.08.2020 passed in M.A.No.14/2020 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. W.P.No.12672/2020 is filed challenging the order dated 05.10.2020 passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.352/2020 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM., Mysuru (for short, ‘the trial Court’) 3. Sri.Gururaj R., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.352/2020 for declaration that the Will dated 06.07.2010 is null and void and other reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 I.A.No.2 seeking restraining order against the petitioner which came to be dismissed and the said order was challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court under the impugned order set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and further the defendants were permitted to proceed with the construction of the building which is under construction in the plaint schedule property and to occupy and use the same. It is submitted that the petitioner-defendant No.1 is aggrieved by the observation of the Appellate Court that the construction put up by the defendants is subject to outcome of the suit, etc. It is further submitted that the petitioner-defendant has put up the construction in the property allotted to him in the earlier proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking police assistance. The order of the Trial Court runs contrary to the order of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 the Appellate Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the petitions. 4. Per contra, Sri.Vivek B.N., learned counsel for Sri.Abhinav R., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.T.J.Raghu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3(B, C, E and F) submits that it is not clear why the defendant No.1 is challenging the order of the Appellate Court, as the Appellate Court has permitted him to put up the construction and he cannot have any grievance. It is submitted that the defendant though permitted to put up the construction, the Appellate Court has observed that the construction should be strictly in accordance with the building plan and the license obtained from the local authority and shall not violate any of the terms and conditions of the same. However, the learned counsel submits that as per his instructions, the defendant has not obtained any sanction plan or the license to put up the construction. Hence, by misusing the order of the Appellate Court, he is trying to put up the construction. It - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 is further submitted that this Court on 23.02.2026 has directed the petitioner to place the sanction plan and so far no such sanction plan nor license is placed. Hence, they seek to dismiss the writ petition. 5. I have heard the arguments on both sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. It is to be noticed that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.352/2020 seeking declaration that the Will dated 06.07.2010 is null and void and other reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking restraining order against the defendants from putting up any construction in the suit schedule property and the said application came to be rejected. The plaintiffs have challenged the said order of the trial Court in M.A.No.14/2020 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide order dated 14.08.2020 has passed the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 “ORDER The Appeal filed Appellants under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC r/w 104 of CPC is allowed with no order as to costs. The Order dated 24.6.2020 in O.S.No.352/2020 passed by the Hon'ble II Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Mysuru is set aside. The application in I.A.No.II filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.No.352/2020 is allowed as follows with no order as to costs. The Defendants are permitted to proceed with the construction of the building which is under construction in the plaint schedule property and to occupy and use the same. The Defendants shall not claim any equity in the event of the Plaintiffs succeeding in this suit and the Plaintiffs would be entitled to claim their share in the land on which the building is constructed and are also entitled to claim the mesne profits if any from the Defendants if a Decree to the said effect is passed in the original suit or in any other proceedings by a competent Court. The Defendants shall put up the construction strictly in accordance with the building plan and the licence obtained from the local authority and shall not violate any of the terms and conditions of the same.” - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the observation of the Appellate Court that the defendants shall not claim any equity in the event of plaintiffs succeeding in the suit and the plaintiffs would be entitled to claim their share in the land on which the building is constructed and other observations are impermissible. It is to be noticed that the respondent- plaintiffs’ suit is pending and they are specifically making assertion that the Will dated 06.07.2010 is not binding on them and the same is null and void, and further prayer that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.473/2008 is required to be implemented. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff. Consequently, allowed I.A.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. However, the Appellate Court permitted the petitioner-defendant to proceed with the construction of the building and also permitted to use the same. The Appellate Court further observed that the defendant shall not claim any equity in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 the event plaintiffs succeed in the suit and plaintiffs would be entitled to claim their share in the land on which the building is constructed and are entitled to claim mesne profit from the defendants if decree is passed to that effect. The Appellate Court further held that the defendants shall put up construction strictly in accordance with the building plan and licence obtained from local authority and shall not violate any of the terms and conditions. The petitioner-defendant cannot have any grievance with regard to the order of the Appellate Court as the Appellate Court has permitted the petitioner- defendant to complete the construction, make use of the same with certain limitations, as the rights of the parties are not yet adjudicated. Hence, the conditions imposed by the Appellate Court are fully justified. 8. The plaintiffs sought police protection which has been accorded by the Trial Court which is impugned in the connected writ petition i.e., W.P.No.12672/2020. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs is - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 specifically contending that the construction put up by the petitioner-defendant on the strength of the order of the Appellate Court is without any sanction plan or licence from the local authority. The Appellate Court has permitted the defendants to put up construction with a specific condition that the construction should be as per the building plan and licence obtained from the local authority. The contention of the respondents-plaintiffs is that the petitioner, taking advantage of the order of the Appellate Court, is putting up construction without any sanction plan or the licence from the local authority. It is required to be noticed that this Court vide order dated 23.02.2026 has directed the petitioner to place the sanctioned plan and licence and admittedly, nothing is placed on record. In my considered view, if the petitioner- defendant is putting up the construction without the sanctioned plan or licence from the local authority then it would be contrary to the order of the Appellate Court dated 14.08.2020 passed in M.A.No.14/2020 and it is - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30029 W.P. No.12674/2020 C/W W.P. No.12672/2020 open for the respondents-plaintiffs to approach the local authority for removal of such construction if it is without sanction plan and licence. It is needless to observe that the local authority shall consider such a request of the plaintiff in accordance with law. 9. Insofar as the order of the trial Court providing police assistance is concerned, the said order also does not call for any interference if the construction of the petitioner-defendant is without any sanctioned plan or licence. It is open for the respondents-plaintiffs to enforce the order of police assistance against the petitioner- defendant if he fails to produce the sanction plan and licence and continues with the construction. 10. With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are closed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2