Karnataka High Court
Smt Ningamma vs Shri Nagaraju on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
W.P. No.3284/2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.3284/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NINGAMMA
W/O LATE BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A. ANNUR VILLAGE
C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
Digitally signed MANDYA DISTRICT - 571428.
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY MR. SANATH KUMAR K.M. ADV.,)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SHRI. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE MARILINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. SHRI. SHIVARAJU
S/O SHRI NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
3. MISS. ANUSHA
D/O SHRI NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT ANNUR VILLAGE
C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571428.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
W.P. No.3284/2022
HC-KAR
4. SMT. ASHA
W/O SHRI RAGHU
D/O SHRI. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT. MARIGUDI BEEDI
K.M. DODDI, C.A. KERE HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571428.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHARVARI S. BHATT, ADV., FOR
MR. CHANDRASHEKAR H.B. ADV., FOR R1 TO R4)
*******
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD. 26.09.2021 PASSED IN M.A.NO.25/2020 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADDUR AS PER ANNX-
L. RESTORE THE ORDER DTD. 24.11.2020 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.1 FILED IN O.S. 392/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MADDUR AS PER
ANNX-H & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
W.P. No.3284/2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2021 passed in M.A.No.25/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur (for short, 'the Appellate Court') and further prayer to continue the order dated 24.11.2020 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.392/2020 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur (for short 'the Trial Court').
2. Sri.Sanath Kumar K.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner- plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents as they were interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession. However, the defendants challenged -4- NC: 2026:KHC:14900 W.P. No.3284/2022 HC-KAR the said order before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court, under the impugned order held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, however, failed to establish interference from the defendants. With the aforesaid finding, the appeal was allowed. It is further submitted that the mother-in-law of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from the father of the defendant No.1 in the year 1974 and after the death of the her mother-in-law, the name of the plaintiff has continued in the revenue records. The Appellate Court, without appreciating the title, revenue records, possession and interference by the other side, reversed the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
3. Per contra, Miss Sharvari S.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Chandrashekar H.B., learned counsel for the respondents supports the order of the Appellate Court and submits that the Appellate Court has taken note of the fact that a bald assertion is made with -5- NC: 2026:KHC:14900 W.P. No.3284/2022 HC-KAR regard to the interference by the defendants. However, nothing is placed before the Court to establish the factum of interference by the defendants with regard to the possession of the plaintiff. It is submitted that now the Trial Court has posted the matter for recording the evidence and in view of the pendency of this petition, the proceedings before the Trial Court are not taken up. It is further submitted that this Court, vide an interim order, has ordered the parties to maintain status quo and the said status quo shall be continued till the disposal of the suit. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition by directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit at the earliest.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:14900 W.P. No.3284/2022 HC-KAR
5. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.392/2020 against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction. The assertion in the plaint is that the mother- in-law of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property vide registered sale deed dated 15.07.1974 from the father of the defendant No.1. Thereafter, the name of the mother-in-law of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records. It is averred that after the death of her mother- in-law, the plaintiff got the revenue records changed in her name. In the year 2020, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property which compelled her to file a suit for permanent injunction and along with the suit, she filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC'). The records indicate that the Trial Court passed an order dated 24.11.2020 on I.A.No.1 by directing the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff within the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule. The -7- NC: 2026:KHC:14900 W.P. No.3284/2022 HC-KAR said order was assailed by the defendants in M.A.No.25/2020 before the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur. The Appellate Court reversed the said order solely on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish the alleged interference by the defendants. The Appellate Court recorded the finding in favour of the defendants with regard to the prima facie case.
6. Be that as it may, it is to be noticed that this Court, vide order dated 14.02.2022 has considered the submissions and directed the parties to maintain status quo and the said order is in force till today. It is brought to the notice of the Court that now the suit is at the stage of recording the evidence. In my considered view, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the impugned order, the interest of justice would be met if the status quo as ordered by this Court is continued till the disposal of the suit.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:14900 W.P. No.3284/2022 HC-KAR
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit.
It is made clear that the Trial Court, while disposing of the suit shall not be influenced by any of the findings recorded either by the Trial Court or by this Court.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33