- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33573 W.P. No.18357/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.18357/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PUTTAMADAMMA W/O LATE DYAPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS HUSKUR DAKLE, KASABA HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571430. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T. ADV., FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.,) AND: 1. GOWRAMMA W/O MUDDIREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. MUDDIREGOWDA S/O LATE JAVARAYIGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LR’S. 2(a) RENUKAMMA W/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. HUCHEGOWDANNA DODDE HUSKUR DAKLE, HUSKUR POST KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 2(b) RANI W/O UMESH Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33573 W.P. No.18357/2021 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS BANGALORE SOUTH DIST – 562159. 2(c) VANI W/O SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT. HUCHEGOWDANNA DODDE HUSKUR DAKLE, HUSKUR POST KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 2(d) VEENA W/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA @ KULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT. HUCHEGOWDANNA DODDE HUSKUR DAKLE, HUSKUR POST KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 2(e) HEMANTH KUMAR S/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT. HUCHEGOWDANNA DODDE HUSKUR DAKLE, HUSKUR POST KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI PRAKASH V, ADV., FOR R1 & LR’S OF R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN M.A.NO.7/2019 AT ANNEXURE-J DATED 6.9.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALAVALLI & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33573 W.P. No.18357/2021 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.09.2021 passed in MA.No.7/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli (for short ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Sri.Yashwanth Nethaji N.T., learned counsel for Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the trial Court upon considering the case of the plaintiff and the defendants, granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any kind of construction over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that, later, the said order was assailed by the defendants before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, under the impugned order reversed the order of the trial Court mainly on the ground that in the durast proceedings, Sy.No.61/2 is of the plaintiff and as per the said durast records and the mahazar, the plaintiff was in possession of only 10.08 guntas and not to the extent of 15.08 guntas. Based on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33573 W.P. No.18357/2021 such documents, the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that the trial Court has erred in granting the temporary injunction. It is further submitted that the order of durast was challenged by the plaintiff before the Deputy Commissioner by filing the revision petition. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 13.06.2017, allowed the revision petition and set aside the entire durast proceedings conducted by the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR). The order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by defendant No.1 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which also came to be dismissed on 31.08.2023. Hence, he seeks to sustain the order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction by allowing the writ petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Ravi Prakash V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the legal heirs of respondent No.2 supports the order of the Appellate Court and submits that the defendants had acquired the property much prior to the plaintiff. It is submitted that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33573 W.P. No.18357/2021 the plaintiff has made averment in paragraph No.6 of the plaint that defendant No.1 was making all the preparations to put up construction by encroaching the portion of the suit schedule property to an extent of 6 guntas of land without getting any panchayath katha and without obtaining the required license under the law. It is further submitted that although the schedule to the plaint describes the extent of the property as 15.08 guntas, the durast proceedings clearly indicate that the plaintiff is actually in possession of only 10.08 guntas. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has also filed a suit in OS.No.20/2018 against one Sri.Karigowda, who is shown to be the adjacent property owner of the suit schedule property towards the eastern side. In the said suit also, the plaintiff has made a similar assertion that Sri.Karigowda has encroached upon a portion of the suit schedule property and was trying to put up the construction without any sanction, approval or permission, which clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff is not sure as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33573 W.P. No.18357/2021 to whether the defendant in the present suit or the defendant in the suit OS.No.20/2018 encroached the property. It is contended that the plaintiff is also not sure with regard to her possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court had protected the possession of the plaintiff by granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction and the said order was never stayed by the Appellate Court. It is submitted that the appeal was allowed in 2021 and thereafter, this Court on 08.10.2021 has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession and if the said order is continued till the disposal of the suit, the ends of justice would be met. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33573 W.P. No.18357/2021 6. The plaintiff filed OS.No.99/2016 against the respondents seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner claimed that she is the purchaser of the suit schedule property from one Sri.Thammaiah under a registered sale deed dated 05.02.1984 to the extent of 15.08 guntas and the said property consists of Mulberry care house and Pumphouse to the extent of 73½ x 37½ feet, of Huskur Panchayath khata No.532/488 situated at Huskur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. The defendants filed a detailed written statement denying the assertion made by the plaintiff including her possession over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court, vide order dated 30.05.2019 allowed IA.No.1 filed by the plaintiff by restraining the defendants from putting up any kind of construction over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33573 W.P. No.18357/2021 7. The order of the trial Court was assailed by the defendants in MA.No.7/2019. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 06.09.2021 by recording reasons that the property in Sy.No.16/1 had underwent durast proceedings and a new durast number had been assigned as Sy.No.61/2 and that as per the durast records, the plaintiff was in possession of only 10.08 guntas. It is required to be noticed that the trial Court vide order dated 30.05.2019 has restrained the defendants from putting up the construction over the suit schedule property. The said order of trial Court was in force until it was set aside by the Appellate Court. Subsequently, this Court on 08.10.2021, directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession. 8. Be that as it may, it is further to be noticed that the durast proceedings in respect of the subject land were challenged by the plaintiff before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner by filing a revision petition. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 13.06.2017 allowed the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33573 W.P. No.18357/2021 revision petition and set aside the durast order of the ADLR. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was assailed by defendant No.1 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 13.08.2023. It is also required to be noticed that the order of the Appellate Court was mainly based on the order of durast, which is not in existence as on this day. Hence, I am of the considered view that if the defendants are allowed to alter the possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit, great injustice would be caused to the plaintiff as the entire basis of the Appellate Court to set aside the order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction was the durast order which is no more in existence. If the defendants are not restrained from putting up the construction over the suit schedule property, then it would be difficult for the plaintiff to seek relief as sought in the plaint. Therefore, I am of the considered view that instead of remanding the matter back to the Appellate Court, it would be appropriate to restrain - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33573 W.P. No.18357/2021 the defendants from putting up any construction over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 06.09.2021 passed in MA.No.7/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli is hereby set aside. iii. The temporary injunction granted by the trial Court vide order dated 30.05.2019 shall be in force till disposal of the suit. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5