Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 43180 (KAR)

SRI. FAROOZ AHAMED v. SMT. NASSIMUNNISA

WP/30434/2026 · 2026-09-25

K V Aravind

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010665912026 NC: 2026:KHC:53169 WP No. 30434 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 30434 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. FAROOZ AHAMED S/O. LATE. V.K. ABDUL REHAMAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O. SUBHASH NAGARA KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED). …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIRGUNA K.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NASSIMUNNISA W/O LATE IQUBAL SAB AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O MURUGAN COLONY WARD NO.9, BESIDE JUNIOR COLLEGE KADUR TOWN. 2. SMT. ZAHEEDA W/O LATE VAZER SAB AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 3. SRI. AFZAL Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010665912026 NC: 2026:KHC:53169 WP No. 30434 of 2026 S/O LATE VAZER SAB AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4. SRI. AFROZ S/O LATE. VAZER SAB AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 5. SRI. FAIROZ S/O LATE. VAZER SAB AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 6. SMT. JAREEN BHANU D/O LATE. VAZER SAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 7. SRI. FAROOQ S/O LATE. VAZEER SAB AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT RAJEEV GANDHI BADAVANE FORT, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK - 577 548. 8. SMT. SHAHINA W/O MOHAMMAD SHARFUL SAB, S/O LATE. VAZER SAB, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O AJAAD NAGARA, DAVANAGERE. 9. SRI. NAZER AHAMMED, S/O LATE. AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O BESIDES, MADANI MASJID, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010665912026 NC: 2026:KHC:53169 WP No. 30434 of 2026 UPPALLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE O/D 25.09.2026 NOTICE TO RESPONODENTS IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.9.2026 ON I.A. NO. 1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN M.A. NO.26/2026 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUDUR, AS PER ANNEXURE-H. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION FOR STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 15.09.2026 passed in M.A.No.26/2026, whereby the defendant has been restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, dispossessing them, or interfering with the layout development work being carried out over the plaint schedule properties. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010665912026 NC: 2026:KHC:53169 WP No. 30434 of 2026 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal in M.A.No.26/2026, along with an application seeking stay of the order of injunction. The appellate Court, by order dated 15.09.2026, issued notice on the said application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of injunction is required to be stayed, as otherwise, third-party interests may be created in respect of the suit schedule properties. 3.1 It is further submitted that the petitioner claims rights under registered sale deeds, whereas the plaintiffs claim rights under orders passed by the revenue authorities, which are subsequent to the execution of the said sale deeds. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not necessary to stay the entire order of injunction dated 05.09.2026. However, in order to preserve the nature of the property insofar as the title thereto is concerned, it would suffice to direct both the parties not to create any third-party rights in respect of the suit schedule property until - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010665912026 NC: 2026:KHC:53169 WP No. 30434 of 2026 consideration of I.A.No.1 filed in M.A.No.26/2026, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur. 5. In view of the limited interference proposed by this Court, notice to the respondent stands dispensed with. 6. The appellate Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.1, seeking stay of the impugned order, within one month from the next date of hearing. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17