Smt Madamma vs Smt Nanjamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 5226 Kant

                                  1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                             BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

       WRIT PETITION NO.17191 OF 2014 (GM - CPC)

BETWEEN:

1.     SMT.MADAMMA,
       W/O LATE NINGEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
       (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

2.     SRI.KARIGOWDA,
       S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

3.     SRI.MAHADEVA,
       S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

       ALL ARE RESIDING AT
       HYRIGE VILLAGE,
       KASABA HOBLI,
       H.D.KOTE - 571 114,
       H.D.KOTE TALUK,
       MYSORE DISTRICT.
                                              ... PETITIONERS
[BY SMT.JAYALAKSHAMMA K.B., ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI.V.M.PRASAD, ADVOCATE]

AND:
SMT.NANJAMMA,
W/O LATE CHIKKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HYRIGE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, H.D.KOTE - 571 114,
H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
                                               ...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. B.S.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE]
                                         2



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.02.2014 PASSED IN M.A.NO.8/2013
FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 OF CPC ON THE FILE OF SR.CIVIL
JUDGE, HUNSUR AND ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 CPC IN O.S.NO.266/2012 ON THE FILE OF
HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION, H.D.KOTE VIDE
ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                                ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the defendants in

O.S.No.266/2012 pending trial before the Civil Judge

(Junior Division), H.D.Kote (henceforth referred to as

'Trial Court), challenging the grant of interim injunction

which was confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur

in M.A.No.8/2013 (hence forth referred to as 'Appellate

Court').

2. A suit in O.S.No.266/2012 is filed for perpetual

injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.89/175

of Doddakeriyur Village, Hampapura Hobli, H.D.Kote

Taluk, Mysuru District.

3. The claim of the plaintiff was based on the grant of the

suit land in favour of the husband of the plaintiff and

that she was in lawful possession. An application was

also filed for interim injunction restraining the defendant

from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The

suit was contested by the defendants who contended

that they are in possession of Sy.No.89/96 of

Doddakariyuru from the year 1974-75 pursuant to a

grant made in their favour. He also contended that

there was an earlier suit in O.S.No.149/1980 which was

decreed in favour of the husband of the defendant No.1.

It is claimed that the Khatha of the property in respect

of the land bearing Sy.No.89/96 was registered in the

name of defendant No.1 pursuant to M.R.No.21/2000-

01.

4. The Trial Court after considering the case of the

plaintiff, held that a triable case was made out by the

plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Therefore, the

Trial Court granted an order of temporary injunction

restraining the defendants from interfering with the

possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendants

filed M.A.No.8/2013.

6. The Appellate Court after considering the documents,

held that the property claimed by both of them were

different and distinct. Therefore, since the defendants

had not made any claim in respect of the suit property,

but claimed the land bearing Sy.No.89/96, the Appellate

Court confirmed the order of temporary injunction.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ

petition is filed.

8. The defendants were unable to establish any right, title

or interest in respect of the suit schedule property which

is the land in Sy.No.89/175. The defendants hinged

their case claiming that they were the owners of

Sy.No.89/96. The boundaries identified by the

Appellate Court in its judgment clearly indicated that

these two properties were distinct and different. The

petitioners were not able to point out any error in the

exercise of jurisdiction by both the Courts warranting

interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.

9. In that view of the matter, both the Courts were

justified in granting an order of Temporary Injunction

and there is no merit in this writ petition, hence, the

same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GJM