Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 52968 (KAR)

NOORAHAMMAD S/O MAHAMMADGOUDS FARASH v. SMT RAFADABI W/O W/O MAHAMMADGOUS FARASH

WP/103660/2024 · 2026-02-03

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1465 WP No. 103660 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.103660 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. NOORAHAMMAD S/O. MAHAMMADGOUDS FARASH, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. 2. MOULALI S/O. MAHAMMADGOUS FARASH, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. 3. RAFEEK S/O. MAHAMMADGOUS FARASH, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAFADABI W/O. MAHAMMADGOUS FARASH, AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. 2. SMT. MANASOORA W/O. ABDULSATTAR FARASH, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MANGALAWARPETH, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1465 WP No. 103660 of 2024 3. SMT. RABIYABI W/O. BABUSAB RAICHUR, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. LAKSHARBAZAR, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. 4. SMT. MAMATAJ W/O. JAFAR CHOPADAR, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. 5. SRI. MAKABULAHAMMAD S/O. MAHAMMADGOUS FARASH, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, C/O. MODINSAB NANAPUR, BAHAOSHNAGAR, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. 6. SMT. TAHAREBANU W/O. MAKABULAHAMMAD FARASH, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O. MODINSAB NANAPUR, BAHAOSHNAGAR, SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR AND DIST. HAVERI-581118. 7. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SAVANUR, R/BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, TMC, SAVANUR-581118. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06-04-2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIGGOAN, SITTING AT SAVANUR, IN M.A. NO.5/2023 VIDE “ANNEXURE-A” AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT ON IA NO.3. B) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1465 WP No. 103660 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 06.04.2024 passed in MA No.5/2023, whereby the appellate Court had allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur on IA No.3 dated 05.04.2023 in OS No.125/2021. 2. The petitioners before this Court are the plaintiffs and they had filed a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. In that, they had filed IA under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking a direction to the defendants not to alienate the suit property. The trial Court by order dated 05.04.2023 had granted injunction, that was vacated by the order impugned. While vacating the order, the appellate Court had observed that on perusal of the fair plaint, it is forthcoming that the suit has been filed in respect to the property bearing TMC number not mentioned, E property bearing 12-33-42 situated at Laxar Bazar, bust stand road, Savanur and another property bearing TMC - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1465 WP No. 103660 of 2024 No.9/1/A, which is not available on spot. Though the applicant himself says that the property TMC No.9/1 is not available on spot, temporary injunction has been sought in respect of the said property, which is not sustainable under law. Another aspect is that on perusal of the E-Khata extract pertaining to 9/1 E-Khata No.12-33-42A in respect of which property, the temporary injunction has been sought, the boundaries of the said property are not tallying with the boundaries of any of the suit properties. When compared to suit 2A property, the Eastern and Southern boundaries tally to each other, but Western and North boundaries do not tally. As regards Item No.B only, south boundary tallies and other boundaries do not tally. On this, it is clear that even if the boundaries of the properties are considered, the boundaries of the suit properties are not tallied with the E-khata extract of 9/1 i.e., 12-33-42A of Savanur, which is the subject matter of IA No. 3. The trial Court without considering the fact that even the boundaries mentioned in the E-khata extract are not tallied with the suit properties, still had granted Injunction. The appellate Court accordingly set-aside the said order, as there cannot be an injunction in respect of a property, which is not the subject matter of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1465 WP No. 103660 of 2024 3. The order impugned was passed on 06.04.2024. Today, this matter is listed under the caption “preliminary hearing”. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that unless the injunction order restraining the respondents from alienating the property is granted, the purpose of filing the suit itself will be defeated and unnecessarily there will be multiplicity of proceedings. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material placed on record. The appellate Court has given cogent reasons as to how the petitioners are not entitled for injunction and how the trial Court had granted injunction without any basis. This Court is thoroughly convinced with the reasons that are given by the trial Court. Along with that, in view of the order passed in MA No.5/2023 on 06.04.2024, almost for a period of two years, there is no order in favour of the petitioners and further the suit is of the year 2021, on that count also, the petitioners are not entitled for any order. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1465 WP No. 103660 of 2024 ORDER i) The present writ petition is dismissed. ii) All I.A.s. in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI JTR CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4