Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38206 (KAR)

SMT SAVITRAMMA v. SRI YOGEESH

WP/3489/2023 · 2026-08-31

Vijaykumar A Patil

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010079602023 NC: 2026:KHC:47243 W.P. No.3489/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3489/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVITRAMMA WIFE OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT PENNASAMUDRA VILLAGE UBRANI HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. 2. SRI. PRAKASH G.S. SON OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT PENNASAMUDRA VILLAGE UBRANI HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NAVYASHREE, ADV., FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M. ADV.,) AND: SRI. YOGEESH SON OF LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT PENNASAMUDRA VILLAGE UBRANI HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KUMARA K.G. ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010079602023 NC: 2026:KHC:47243 W.P. No.3489/2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OS.NO.93/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI. ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.11.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.93/2020 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI IN DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-E, FURTHER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.11.2022 PASSED IN MA NO.19/2020 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND THEREBY ORDER TO ALLOW IA NO.1 FILED IN OS.NO.93/2020 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST & 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 09.11.2020 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.93/2020 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, (for short, ‘the trial Court’) and the order dated 05.11.2022 passed in M.A.No.19/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Channagiri (for short, ‘the appellate Court’). 2. Heard Smt.Navyashree, learned counsel for Sri.Siddamallappa P.M., learned counsel appearing for the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010079602023 NC: 2026:KHC:47243 W.P. No.3489/2023 petitioner; Sri.Kumara K.G., learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 3. Petitioners-plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.93/2020 for declaration that the plaintiffs are the joint owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction, the said application came to be rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, the said order was challenged before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.19/2020 and the appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by recording the finding that the construction alleged in the application is already completed. The said orders are challenged in this petition. 4. It is to be noticed that, in the schedule to the application, the plaintiffs are making assertion that in 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.11/1, which is a karab, the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010079602023 NC: 2026:KHC:47243 W.P. No.3489/2023 respondent-defendant is putting up the construction and the said property should be declared as plaintiffs’ property. Be that as it may, the appellate Court at paragraph No.16 had made observation that the construction of Khenimane has already completed and dismissed the appeal. I do not find any good grounds to interfere with the orders under challenge as the finding is that the construction is already completed and the prayer in the application for temporary injunction is for not to put up the construction. The relief sought in the suit is for declaration and the trial Court shall consider the said relief on merits without being influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned orders in this petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32