- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100015 OF 2026 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100016 OF 2026 (CPC) IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100015 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. RAJENDRA KALEBERE, AGE. 52 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT- 269A, GANESH PETH, LAXMI ROAD, PUNE-411002, MAHARASHTRA. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJENDRA C.KALEBERE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI RANGANATH @ RANGAPPA NAGALING CHIPPALKATTI, AGE: 50 YEARS OCC.: GOLD BUSINESS, R/AT CHIPPALKATTI SADAN, NEXT TO VIDHAN SOUDHA, LAXMI TEMPLE ROAD, GOKAK, PIN CODE-591307. 2. SHRI VINAYAK NAGALING CHIPPALKATTI, AGE: 51 YEARS OCC. GOLD BUSINESS, R/AT. CHIPPALKATTI SADAN, NEXT TO VIDHAN SOUDHA, LAXMI TEMPLE ROAD, GOKAK, PIN CODE-591307. 3. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADD. SMEC CENTRE, RAMESH PRIDE, 3RD FLOOR, CONGRESS ROAD, TILAK WADI, BELAGAVI-590006. 4. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS MANAGER, Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 ADD. SMEC CENTRE, RAMESH PRIDE, 3RD FLOOR, CONGRESS ROAD, TILAK WADI, BELAGAVI. 5. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SHRI RAVINDRA GOVINDRAO KULKARNI, AGE: 60 YEARS, ADD. SMEC CENTRE, RAMESH PRIDE, 3RD FLOOR, CONGRESS ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006. 6. SHRI NITESH NARAYANDAS SUGNANI, PROP. M/S COSMOS COMMUNICATIONS, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. SMART PRIDE, H.NO. T 302, 3RD FLOOR, BUDHWAR PETH, BELAGAVI. 7. SMT. KAMALABAI SHANTILAL PARMAR, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC. GOLD BUSINESS, R/AT- 2492B, RAVIWAR PETH, GOKAK, PIN CODE-591307. 8. SHRI NITIN MANOHAR BONGALE S/O. MANOHAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/AT. CTS NO.3149/A, RAVIWAR PETH, NEAR KADALGIKAR HOSPITAL, GOKAK- 591307. 9. SMT. ANURADHA @ PUSHPA MANOHAR BONGALE, WIDOW OF MANOHAR BONGALE, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/AT. CTS NO.3149/A, RAVIWAR PETH, NEAR KADALGIKAR HOSPITAL, GOKAK-591307. 10. SHRI SANTOSH VIVEKANAND BONGALE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/AT. CTS NO.2491, 2493 AND 2494, RAVIWAR PETH, OPP. KADALGIKAR HOSPITAL, GOKAK- 591307. SHRI ANAND @ PRASAD VIVEKANAND BONGALE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 11. MASTER NIRMAY ANAND @ PRASAD BONGALE (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.12- SMT. ARUNDHATI VIVEKANAND BONGALE. 12. SMT. ARUNDHATI VIVEKANAND BONGALE, AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD DUTIES ALL (A) AND (B) R/AT - CTS NO.2491, 2493 AND 2494, RAVIWAR PETH, OPP. KADALGIKAR HOSPITAL, GOKAK- 591307. 13. CITY MUNICIPAL, GOKAK, NEAR SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, GOKAK, PIN CODE -591307. 14. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GOKAK, THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER (SHRI MAHAJAN), NEAR SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, GOKAK, PIN CODE -591307. - RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. G.B. NAIK, ADV. FOR R1, R2 AND R7 (APPEARED THROUGH VC) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104 R/W UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2025 PERTAINING TO O.S. NO.774/2023 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK AT GOKAK PASSED ON IA NO.III AND ETC.,. IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100016 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. RAJENDRA KALEBERE, AGE. 52 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT- 269A, GANESH PETH, LAXMI ROAD, PUNE-411002, MAHARASHTRA. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJENDRA C.KALEBERE, ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 AND: 1. SHRI RANGANATH @ RANGAPPA NAGALING CHIPPALKATTI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. GOLD BUSINESS, R/AT. CHIPPALKATTI SADAN, NEXT TO VIDHAN SOUDHA, LAXMI TEMPLE ROAD, GOKAK, PIN CODE-591307. 2. SHRI VINAYAK NAGALING CHIPPALKATTI, AGE: 48 YEARS OCC. GOLD BUSINESS, R/AT. CHIPPALKATTI SADAN, NEXT TO VIDHAN SOUDHA, LAXMI TEMPLE ROAD, GOKAK, PIN CODE-591307. 3. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADD. SMEC CENTRE, RAMESH PRIDE, 3RD FLOOR, CONGRESS ROAD, TILAK WADI, BELAGAVI-590006. 4. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS MANAGER, ADD. SMEC CENTRE, RAMESH PRIDE, 3RD FLOOR, CONGRESS ROAD, TILAK WADI, BELAGAVI. 5. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SHRI RAVINDRA GOVINDRAO KULKARNI, AGE: 57 YEARS, ADD. SMEC CENTRE, RAMESH PRIDE, 3RD FLOOR, CONGRESS ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006. 6. SHRI NITESH NARAYANDAS SUGNANI, PROP. M/S COSMOS COMMUNICATIONS, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. SMART PRIDE, H.NO. T 302, 3RD FLOOR, BUDHWAR PETH, BELAGAVI. 7. SMT. KAMALABAI SHANTILAL PARMAR, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC. GOLD BUSINESS, R/AT- 2492B, RAVIWAR PETH, GOKAK, PIN CODE-591307. 8. SHRI NITIN MANOHAR BONGALE S/O. MANOHAR, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/AT. CTS NO.3149/A, RAVIWAR PETH, NEAR KADALGIKAR HOSPITAL, GOKAK- 591307. 9. SMT. ANURADHA @ PUSHPA MANOHAR BONGALE, WIDOW OF MANOHAR BONGALE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/AT. CTS NO.3149/A, RAVIWARPETH, NEAR KADALGIKAR HOSPITAL, GOKAK-591307. 10. SHRI SANTOSH VIVEKANAND BONGALE, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/AT. CTS NO.2491, 2493 AND 2494, RAVIWAR PETH, OPP. KADALGIKAR HOSPITAL, GOKAK- 591307. 11. SHRI ANAND @ PRASAD VIVEKANAND BONGALE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR MASTER NIRMAY ANAND @ PRASAD BONGALE (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.12- SMT. ARUNDHATI VIVEKANAND BONGALE. 12. SMT. ARUNDHATI VIVEKANAND BONGALE, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD DUTIES ALL (A) AND (B) R/AT - CTS NO.2491, 2493 AND 2494, RAVIWAR PETH, OPP. KADALGIKAR HOSPITAL, GOKAK- 591307. 13. CITY MUNICIPAL, GOKAK, NEAR SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, GOKAK, PIN CODE -591307 14. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GOKAK, THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER (SHRI MAHAJAN), NEAR SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, GOKAK, PIN CODE -591307. - RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. G.B. NAIK, ADV. FOR R1, R2 AND R7 (APPEARED THROUGH VC) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104 R/W UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2025 PERTAINING TO OS NO.774/2023 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK AT GOKAK PASSED ON IA NO.II BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC.,. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed In I.A. No. 2 and I.A. No. 3 in O.S. No. 774/2023 dated 01.12.2025 by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, the plaintiff is before this court. As the plaintiff and the respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same, this Court is disposing of these two writ petitions by way of a common order. 2. The plaintiff / petitioner herein, had filed a suit seeking a declaration that the Will dated 10.03.1986 in favour of defendants No. 8, 10 and 11, is null and void and also sought declaration that the sale deeds that are executed are null and void, sought permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2, restraining them from demolishing any part of the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 schedule properties, restraining them from creating third party rights, injunction against defendant no. 7, mandatory injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2, and also a direction to defendants No. 1 and 2 to plant curry leaf shrubs and other trees. Altogether she has sought for 18 reliefs from the court. 3. I.A. No. 3 is filed seeking injunction against defendant No. 7 restraining him from demolishing any part of the suit property which came to be dismissed and against that M.F.A. No. 100016/2026 is filed. Then I.A. No. 2 is filed seeking an injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2, that came to be dismissed and against that M.F.A. No. 100015/2026 is filed. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the properties described in Paragraphs No. 3 and 3A are standing in the name of defendants no. 1 and 2. Defendants no. 1 and 2 are intending to construct the building in the suit properties to cause every loss to her by colluding with each other. Hence the present application is filed. 5. It is the case of the defendants No.1 and 2 that the plaintiff has no right over the property and the property stands in the name of defendants no. 1 and 2. The suit property is the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 property of defendant No. 8. He sold the said property to defendant No. 6 by a registered sale deed dated 18.06.2012. Since the date of the purchase of said property, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant No. 6 obtained the loan from State Bank of India, i.e. defendants No. 3 to 5. By mortgaging the said property, the defendant no. 6 has become the defaulter. Therefore, the defendants no. 3 to 5/bank authorities have taken action against defendant No. 6 by initiating the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act) and conducted public auction. The said property was adjacent to the property of defendant No. 2. Therefore, defendant No. 2 purchased the said property in the auction and a sale certificate was issued in favour of defendant No. 2 on 13.10.2018 and a sale deed was registered on 19.12.2018 and the defendant no. 2 was put in possession of the property. Since from the date of the purchase, the defendant No.2 was in possession of the property. As he was in need of money, he sold an area of 791.50 square feet out of CTS No. 2491 to defendant No. 1 to the Southern side of the said property to another property of defendant No. 9 is existing. It is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 stated that defendants no. 1 and 2 are trying to move a building permission application before the concerned authority and due to change of authorities, it is taking time. 6. It is a case of the petitioner that the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled for any injunction. The trial Court by order impugned had dismissed the applications filed against defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 7. While dismissing both the applications, the Trial Court had observed that the Will was executed on 10.03.1986. On the basis of the Will, the mutation has been effected on 31.01.1987 and the properties are bequeathed in favour of defendant No. 8 and two properties which are not in the suit scheduled properties, have been bequeathed to defendants No. 10 and 11, who are none other than the brothers of the plaintiff. The Will contains four properties, wherein two properties have been given to defendant No. 8 and another two properties are given to defendants No. 10 and 11, who are the grandchildren of the testator. The petitioner/plaintiff is challenging only with respect to the two properties which are given to defendant no. 8 but the plaintiff challenging the entire Will. However, the other two properties - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 have not been shown as suit schedule properties. The Trial Court has observed that the Will was executed in the year 1986 and after death of the testator the properties have been mutated in favour of the beneficiaries. After lapse of more than 28 years, the plaintiff is challenging the alleged Will. Except the plaintiff, none of the children or grandchildren have challenged the alleged Will till today. The Court observed from the plaint that it suggests that plaintiff, on one hand is challenging the alleged Will and on the other hand claiming preemption rights over the suit properties. That itself suggests that the alleged Will is acted upon and as per the alleged Will, the beneficiary under the will is residing in the properties bequeath to them. Hence, if at all the plaintiff has right over the suit properties, she could have claimed the partition in all the suit properties. But without filing the proper suit, the present suit is filed against the defendants seeking temporary injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2. The beneficiary under the Will has sold the properties to defendant no. 6 and defendant no. 7 way back in the year 20.07.2012 and executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 7. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case to grant temporary injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2 and defendant no. 7. The Court has also come to the conclusion that if the injunction is not granted, no loss would be caused to the plaintiff, but if the injunction is granted, irreparable loss would be caused to the defendant and accordingly dismissed both the applications. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that now by virtue of the order that is passed by the trial Court in dismissing the application that was filed seeking injunction, the illegal constructions raised by the defendants are in a way legalized and under the guise of these orders they are rigorously going forward with the construction. If they proceed with the construction that would cause lot of hardship to the petitioner/ plaintiff and all these aspects were not considered by the Trial court in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the sale certificate will not confer any right and title on defendant No.2 and the Trial Court ought to have granted injunction as sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 9. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants No.1, 2 and 7 who are the contesting defendants and against whom the plaintiff has sought for injunction, submits that the plaintiff has come before the Court questioning the Will that is executed in the year 1986. It is submitted that from that date much water has flown and rights have accrued in favour of the parties and the defendants have started the construction, that construction is almost on the verge of completion. At this stage, if the injunction is granted, it would cause hardship and prejudice to the rights of the defendants. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed I.As which are filed seeking injunction. It is submitted that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the Court. 10. Having heard the learned counsels in either side, perused the material on record. The plaintiff had filed the suit seeking declaration, injunction and also sought for the cancellation of the sale deeds. The reliefs sought are 18 in number. Admittedly the Will that is sought to be set aside is of the year 1986, from a long time the names of the parties are mutated and they have been in occupation of the property. There is no dispute in that - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 regard. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, for grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff has to prove that he has a prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in his favour and if the injunction is not granted, it would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiff. 12. Looking at the prayers that are sought and the pleadings of the petitioner, the petitioner could not make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. In fact, considering the respective cases, the Trial Court has rightly held that the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of the defendants and had rightly dismissed IAs that are filed for injunction restraining the defendant no. 1, 2 and 7. This Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly this Court is passing the following order: ORDER 1. M.F.A. No. 100015/2026 and M.F.A. No. 100016/2026 arising out of the order passed In I.A. No. 2 and I.A. No. 3 in O.S. No. 774/2023 dated 01.12.2025 by the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:685 MFA No. 100015 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2026 learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak are dismissed. 2. All IAs in this petition shall stand disposed. SD/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI BVV CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46