Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30223 (KAR)

H C GIRISH v. DR G S SHARMILA

WP/17561/2022 · 2026-07-21

Vijaykumar A Patil

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399502022 NC: 2026:KHC:37532 W.P. No.17561/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.17561/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: H.C. GIRISH S/O LATE H.C. CHANNAIAH PATEL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O HPC NILAYA OPP NANJAPPA HOSPITAL KUVEMPU MARGA SHIVAMOGGA-577201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR, ADV.,) AND: DR. G.S. SHARMILA W/O DR. H.C. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS DOCTOR AND AGRICULTURIST R/O 1ST CROSS, JAYANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577201. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF COURT OF ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM SHIVAMOGGA, INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DTD 19.07.2022 (APPEAL COURT) IN M.A. 26/2021 AND THAT OF RECORDS OF V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA, Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399502022 NC: 2026:KHC:37532 W.P. No.17561/2022 IN O.S.NO.726/20, INCLUDING THE ORDER DTD 23.07.2021 VIDE ANNX-B, FOR VERIFYING THE FACTUAL CORRECTNESS AND LEGALITY OF THE SAME & 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 23.07.2021 passed in O.S.No.726/2020 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga (for short ‘the Trial Court’) and the order dated 19.07.2022 passed in M.A.No.26/2021 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga (for short ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Sri.Varadaraj R. Havaldar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent had filed a suit for bare injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was allowed and later the appeal of the defendant was dismissed. It is submitted that the respondent-plaintiff is the wife of - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399502022 NC: 2026:KHC:37532 W.P. No.17561/2022 Dr.H.C.Shivakumar, who claims to be the son of late Sri.H.C.Channaiah Patel, born to Smt.G.Basamma who claims to be the second wife of late Sri.H.C.Channaiah Patel. It is further submitted that the daughters of Sri.H.C.Channaiah Patel filed a suit in O.S.No.102/2017 for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, said Dr.H.C.Shivakumar was transposed as a plaintiff. The suit came to be decreed which was assailed before this Court in RFA No.1013/2019. It is also submitted that in the said proceedings, Dr.H.C.Shivakumar has clearly admitted that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and when things stood thus, the Trial Court ought not to have granted temporary injunction by considering the alleged partition between Dr.H.C.Shivakumar and his mother Smt.G.Basamma, without considering whether Smt.G.Basamma had any right over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that in relation to half portion of the property in Sy.No.121, the husband of the respondent filed O.S.No.248/2020 seeking the relief of permanent - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399502022 NC: 2026:KHC:37532 W.P. No.17561/2022 injunction which came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, considering these aspects, the property being the joint family property, there cannot be a temporary injunction against the co-sharer of the property. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Though notice is served on the respondent, there is no representation. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent has filed O.S.No.726/2020 for the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein or a person claiming under him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is referred as 3 acres 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.121 of Holebenavalli Village, Magadi Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk, wherein - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399502022 NC: 2026:KHC:37532 W.P. No.17561/2022 arecanut seedlings are planted. The plaint averments indicate that there was a partition between the husband of the plaintiff Dr.H.C.Shivakumar and Smt.G.Basamma and under the said partition, the property is allotted to the husband of the plaintiff and thereafter, the husband of the plaintiff had executed a registered gift deed dated 12.10.2017. It is to be noticed that after the partition and execution of the gift deed, the revenue records are mutated in the name of the respondent-plaintiff. Considering the said aspect, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff which is affirmed by the Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. It is required to be noticed that the petitioner-defendant is specifically contending that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and the husband of the plaintiff Dr.H.C.Shivakumar has admitted the said fact in O.S.No.102/2007 and the same is pending in RFA No.1013/2019 which is required to be gone into in the appeal. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010399502022 NC: 2026:KHC:37532 W.P. No.17561/2022 taking note of the fact that the suit schedule property is standing in the name of the plaintiff and all the revenue records are mutated in her name, proceeded to grant temporary injunction. I do not find any error in the impugned orders of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court calling for interference in the present petition. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44