Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangamma vs Smt Lakshmamma on 2 March, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.4680 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE KEMPASIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
2 . SMT. MANJAMMA
W/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
3 . SRI. UMESH N
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
All ARE R/AT HULIKAL VILLAGE,
KUDUR HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT BALAGANGADHAR THILAKNAGARA,
HULIKAL, KUDUR HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 561 101.
2
2. SMT G SAVITHRI
W/O.LATE H.B. GURUMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
3. MALATHI
D/O LATE H.B. GURUMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
4. SRI ALLAMAPRABHU
S/O.LATE H.B.GURUMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESPONDENT No. 2 TO 4 ARE
R/AT H.NO.91, 10TH CROSS,
N.G.E.F. LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
LIMA HOME HOSTEL,
NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR,
NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU 560 072.
....RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 27.10.2021, PASSED
BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
MAGADI, IN MA NO.2/2019, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2019, PASSED BY THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, ON IA NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.344/17 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER
39 RULE 1 AND 2, READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, VIDE
ANNX-G AND E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the
plaintiffs/petitioners assailing the Order dated
20.03.2019 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.344/2017 by
the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Magadi and also
order dated 27.10.2021 in M.A.No.2/2019 on the file of
the Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Magadi.
2. Brief facts for adjudication of this writ
petition are that the petitioner/plaintiffs filed a suit in
O.S.No.344/2017 seeking for permanent injunction in
respect of the subject land. The respondents/
defendants have entered appearance and filed written
statement denying the averments made in the plaint.
The petitioners/plaintiffs have also filed an application
in I.A-1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C.,
seeking for temporary injunction, and the trial Court,
after considering the material on record, by its order
dated 20.03.2019, dismissed I.A-1 filed by the
petitioner/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of
C.P.C. Being aggrieved by the same,
petitioner/plaintiffs filed appeal in M.A.No.2/2019 on
the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C., at Magadi, which came to be dismissed vide
order dated 27.10.2021 and being aggrieved by the
same, petitioner/plaintiffs have presented this writ
petition.
3. Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, contended that the
petitioner/plaintiffs have produced the RTC extracts
before the trial Court, which clearly indicates the fact
that the name of the Kempasiddaiah finds place in
Column No.12 as cultivator, the said aspect has not
been considered by both the Courts below while
refusing to grant temporary injunction. Accordingly, he
sought for interference in this writ petition.
4. It is well settled principle that granting or
refusal of injunction is based on the documents
produced by the parties. It is settled principle of law
that it is a discretionary relief to be granted by the
Trial Court.
5. Undisputedly, the suit is filed for permanent
injunction and the petitioner/plaintiffs has produced
the RTC extracts to prove their title insofar as suit
schedule property and also regarding possession. The
trial Court, after considering the material on record,
has arrived at a conclusion at Para Nos.12 to 14 and
held as follows:
"12. Though, it is the defence of the
defendant that the defendant is in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. As per the contention of
the defendant. The suit schedule property
belonged to one Sri.Basappa the father-in-
law of 2nd defendant and grandfather of
defendant Nos.3 and 4. After the death of
Sri.Basappa the 2nd defendant's husband
Sri.Gurumurthy has succeeded to the suit
schedule property along with his brother.
After the death of Gurumurthy the
defendants succeeded to the estate of
deceased Gurumurthy and the defendant
No.2 became the absolute owner and in
possession and enjoyment of the same.
Further the defendant No.2 to 4 have sold
the schedule property to the 1st defendant
under the registered sale deed. In view of
the sale deed the 1st defendant became
absolute owner and in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
The plaintiffs are not in possession of the
suit schedule property and they have no
right title over the suit schedule property.
Since there is a dispute with respect to the
suit schedule property that has to be
considered only on full fledged trail. At this
stage, it cannot be come to the conclusion
that the plaintiff is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property..
13. The counsel for plaintiff while
addressing argument, they have
vehemently argued that the defendants are
interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property by dispossessing the
plaintiffs from possession and enjoyment.
Hence, in this case I am of the opinion that
the matter is involved with respect to title
of the property that has to be taken into
consideration during the trial.
14. Though the plaintiff and
defendants contended that, they are in
possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. In order to consider,
who is in possession over the suit schedule
property it requires full fledged trial.
Hence, at this stage the Court cannot come
to the conclusion that, who is in possession
over the suit schedule property."
6. The petitioner/plaintiffs have not made out
case for granting of temporary injunction as sought for
and, the First Appellate Court having taken note of the
findings recorded by the Trial Court at para-18 of the
judgment, has arrived at a conclusion that the
documents produced by the petitioner/plaintiffs do not
disclose the possession over the suit schedule
property. However, the said findings recorded by both
the Courts below is only with regard to seeking
temporary injunction by the petitioner/plaintiffs and
same cannot be considered as findings on the merits of
the case.
7. In that view of the matter, taking into
consideration the findings recorded by both the Courts
below, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution is having limited
jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by both
the Courts below. Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GRD
