Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangamma vs Smt Vijayamma on 30 August, 2023
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31112
WP No. 11266 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 11266 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA
WIFE OF SIDDAMALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT BULASAGARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE- 577 213.
2. SRI. GURUSIDDAIAH
SON OF LATE DODDASIDARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT BULASAGARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE- 577 213.
Digitally signed by 3. SRI. PRAKASHAIAH
GURURAJ D SON OF LATE SIDDAMALLAIAH,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Court of Karnataka R/AT BULASAGARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE- 577 213.
4. SRI. JAYAIAH
SON OF LATE SIDDAMALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT BULASAGARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE- 577 213.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31112
WP No. 11266 of 2020
5. SRI. RAJAIAH
SON OF LATE SIDDAMALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT BULASAGARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE- 577 213.
6. SRI. SHANKARAIAH,
SON OF GURUSIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT BULASAGARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE- 577 213.
7. SRI. PARAMESHWARAIAH,
SON OF GURUSIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT BULASAGARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE- 577 213.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUMAN HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. VIJAYAMMA
WIFE OF LATE SHIVAMURTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT BULASAGARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE- 577 213.
2. SRI. ESHWARIAH
SON OF LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT BULASAGARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE- 577 213.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:31112
WP No. 11266 of 2020
3. SRI. YUVARAIAH
SON OF LATE SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT BULASAGARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
PIN CODE- 577 213.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHNU G.K., ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.02.2020 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
CHANNAGIRI IN O.S.NO.108/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND
THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2020 PASSED IN M.A.NO.8/2020
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
CHANNAGIRI AS PER ANENXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners/defendants in O.S.No.108/2018 on
the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri
are before this Court, questioning the order dated
27.02.2020 on I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
of CPC in O.S.No.108/2018 and judgment dated
21.07.2020 in M.A.No.08/2020 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri confirming the order of
the trial Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:31112
WP No. 11266 of 2020
2. Heard learned counsel Smt.Suman Hegde for
petitioners and learned counsel Sri.Vishnu G.K., for
respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
the respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.108/2018 for
declaration of title and also for injunction in respect of
Sy.No.45/5 measuring 2 acres 07 guntas situated at
Bulusagara village, Kasaba Hobli, Channagiri Taluk.
Learned counsel would submit that the suit schedule
property is the joint family property. In respect of the
schedule property and other properties, O.S.No.63/2018 is
pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at
Channagiri. Since, it is a joint family property, the trial
Court and Appellate Court could not have granted
injunction against the co-owners. Further, learned counsel
for the petitioners/defendants would submit that the
plaintiffs/respondents are in occupation by constructing
the house to an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas and not in the
entire 2 acres 07 guntas as mentioned in the suit
NC: 2023:KHC:31112
WP No. 11266 of 2020
schedule. Further, learned counsel would submit that
since it is a joint family property, the trial Court committed
an error in granting injunction against the co-owners.
Thus, it is prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting
aside the order of the trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/
plaintiffs would submit that the suit schedule property is
not joint family property and it is purchased by father-in-
law of plaintiff No.1. Further, he submits that the plaintiffs
have constructed the house in the suit schedule property
and they are in possession of the suit schedule land. It is
submitted that on examination of the material on record
and on finding that the respondents/plaintiffs have made
out prima-facie case, the trial Court allowed the
application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
Thus, he submits that there is no reason to disagree with
the finding of trial Court which was affirmed by the
Appellate Court and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:31112
WP No. 11266 of 2020
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view
that no ground is made out to interfere with the
concurrent fact finding by the trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court in respect of grant of injunction in favour
of the respondents/plaintiffs.
6. It is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that it is
not a joint family property and it is purchased by father-
in-law of the first plaintiff under registered sale deed dated
03.05.1957. The trial Court, in its order dated 27.02.2020
has made it clear that the respondents/plaintiffs are in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
The Appellate Court, on perusal of the material on record
and on perusal of the katha which stands in the name of
the plaintiffs affirmed the order passed by the trial Court.
The contention that the suit schedule property is joint
family property is against the contention of the plaintiffs
that it is self-acquired property and not joint family
NC: 2023:KHC:31112
WP No. 11266 of 2020
property, requires to be adjudicated in the pending
partition suit.
7. No ground is made out for interference with the
impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
rejected.
The trial Court shall endeavour for early disposal of
the suit with the cooperation of the parties as well as the
learned counsels.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MPK
CT:bms
