1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.14634 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. INDRAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHIKKONU,
2 . SMT. SUSHEELAMMA,
AGED ABOUT D46 YEARS,
W/O INDRAKUMAR,
3 . SRI. CHANDAN,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O INDRAKUMAR,
THE PETITIONERS 1, 2 & 3 ARE
R/O S.I. HONNALAGERE,
C.A.KERE HOBLI - 571 422,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. SHARADAMMA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
W/O LATE MARIGOWDA,
2 . SRI. PUTTEGOWDA
AGEDA BOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE MARIGOWDA,
3 . SRI. NANDEESH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE MARIGOWDA,
2
THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE
R/O S.I. HONNALAGERE,
C.A.KERE HOBLI - 571 422,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
IN OS NO.361/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF FIRST
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MADDUR AND IN MA
NO.3/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDUR AND HEAR THE PARTIES
AND PASS THE FOLLOWING ORDERS; QUASH THE ORDER DTD
10.02.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO.361/2019 BY THE
FIRST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDUR VIDE ANNX-E
AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DTD 06.11.2019 IN MA NO.3/2020
PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
MADDUR VIDE ANNX-H. AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners being the defendants in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.361/2019 are knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for laying a challenge to the order dated 06.11.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E whereby the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Maddur, having rejected their appeal in M.A.No.3/2020 has affirmed temporary injunctive relief granted to the respondent-plaintiff by the learned trial Judge. 3
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as both the Courts below having considered all aspects of the matter have entered a concurrent provisional finding as to the possession of the respondent-plaintiffs by virtue of presumption arising under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
3. Such discretionary orders of the kind ordinarily do not merit a deeper examination in view of the decision of the Apex Court in SADHANA LODH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY & ANOTHER, (2003) 3 SCC 524.
4. The contentions founded on a testament ordinarily are not treated while considering the application for temporary protection vide ARUN KUMAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ILR KAR SN No.12.
5. Although this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take up 4 all contentions including the one touching the will in question as well.
With the above observations, writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE DS