Karnataka High Court
Shantappa S/O Shankrappa Koti vs Padmappa S/O Shankrappa Koti on 19 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16776
WP No. 106741 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.106741 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHANTAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA KOTI,
AGE: 81 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI - 581 212.
2. PARSHWANTH S/O. SHANTAPPA KOTI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI - 581 212.
3. MANJUNATH S/O. SHANTAPPA KOTI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI - 581 212.
4. MAHAVEER S/O. JINNAPPA KOTI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
R/O: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON,
Location: High DIST: HAVERI - 581 212.
Court of
Karnataka
5. BAHUBALI S/O. JINNAPPA KOTI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI - 581 212.
6. SHANKRAPPA S/O. DEVENDRAPPA KOTI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI - 581 212.
7. SANTOSH S/O. YASHWANTAPPA KOTI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16776
WP No. 106741 of 2024
DIST: HAVERI - 581 212.
8. MUDUKAPPA @ BHARAMAPPA
S/O. YASHWANTAPPA KOTI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI - 581 212.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
PADMAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA KOTI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: TADAS, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI - 581 212.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
26/09/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN M.A.NO.4/2024 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIGGAON AND ORDER DATED
10/06/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN O.S.NO.204/2022 BEFORE THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIGGAON AND, AS NULL AND VOID AND
ACCEPT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.A.NO.4/2024
BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIGGAON AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16776
WP No. 106741 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following
relief:
i. To issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing
the Order dated 26/09/2024 vide ANNEXURE-F in
M.A.No.4/2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C., Shiggaon and Order dated
10/06/2024 vide ANNEXURE-D in O.S.No.204/2022
before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon and, as
null and void and accept the Appeal filed by the
Petitioner in M.A.No.4/2024 before the Senior Civil
Judge, Shiggaon.
ii. To grant any other Writ/Relief deemed appropriate
by this Hon'ble Court.
2. The relevant facts in nutshell leading to the
present writ petition are that the 1st respondent/plaintiff
instituted a suit in O.S.No.204/2022 before the Civil Judge and
JMFC, Shiggaon1 for injunction to restrain the
appellants/defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Along
with the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for ad-interim injunction to restrain the
defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful
Hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16776
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The appellants,
who are arrayed as defendants in the suit, entered appearance
in the suit and contested the same by filing written statement.
A memo was filed to adopt the written statement as objections
to I.A.No.1. The Trial Court vide order dated 10.06.2024
allowed I.A.No.1 and passed the following order:
IA.No.I filed by the Plaintiff under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/W Sec. 151 of CPC., is
hereby allowed.
Issue temporary injunction against Defendants
and persons claiming through him restraining them
from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property till
disposal of suit.
Nor order as to costs.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellants/defendants
preferred M.A.No.4/2024 before the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Shiggaon2. The First Appellate Court by its order dated
10.06.2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order
passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the present writ
petition is filed by the defendants.
Hereinafter referred to as "the First Appellate Court"
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16776
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing
the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
vehemently contends that before the rights of the parties could
attain finality pursuant to the judgment passed in
O.S.No.115/2005, the suit for injunction has been filed and that
the injunction granted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the
First Appellate Court is erroneous and is liable to be interfered
with by this Court in the present appeal.
5. It is forthcoming that the First Appellate Court
while considering the M.A.No.4/2024 has recorded following
findings:
"15. Reasoning recorded by this court: This
court after securing the trial court records gone
through the materials placed by both plaintiff
and defendants. It is admitted fact that the
plaintiff had filed suit for partition and separate
possession in respect of suit lands and non suit
lands. It is also admitted fact that the said suit
came to be decreed and the plaintiff had
approached to draw final decree and final decree
already drown. With this back ground the RTC
produced by the plaintiff prima facially goes to
show that the plaintiff is cultivating the suit land
and also his name is appeared in the property
extract of house property. The plaintiff is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16776
claiming possession over the suit properties on
the basis of final decree passed in FDP
No.30/2017. As per preliminary decree passed in
O.S.No.115/2005 the shares specified in
preliminary decree have been already demarked
as per the order passed in FDP No.30/2017. The
said final decree passed in FDP No.30/2017 was
acted upon the revenue records pertaining to
suit properties. In relation to house property the
property extract produced along with plaint
wherein plaintiff name is appearing as owner.
The plaintiff in order to prima facially show his
possession over suit house has produced in all 4
photographs. On perusal of these photographs it
prima facially show that the plaintiff is residing in
suit house. Under the circumstances the revenue
records of suit properties prima facially show the
legal right of plaintiff over the suit properties.
The defendants have much stated about the
appeal preferred by them before Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka but failed to place any
interim order passed thereon. Mere filing of
appeal is not sufficient to hold that the
defendants are having possession over the suit
properties. The prima facie materials produced
by the plaintiffs are sufficient to hold that there
is a prima facie case and balance of convenience
lies in his favour as to pass order till disposal of
the suit. As to prima facially over come the case
of plaintiff nothing has been placed by the
defendants except their pleadings. Therefore,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16776
before trial court there are sufficient materials
produced by the plaintiff as to grant temporary
injunction against the defendants. The trial court
upon perusal of the materials has rightly came
into conclusion that the plaintiff has got prima
facie case to grant temporary injunction.
Accordingly the trial court has granted temporary
injunction in order to restrain the defendants
from doing any illegal acts against the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of suit properties by
the plaintiff. If the defendant wants to place any
contrary materials to the plaintiff case than they
go for trail expediuslly. For the above said all
reasons in the considered opinion of this court
there is no matter left here to make interference
in order passed by the trial court."
(Emphasis supplied)
6. It is relevant to note that the First Appellate
Court has noticed that the plaintiff has demonstrated that he is
in possession of the suit property and is residing in the suit
house. Further, the First Appellate Court has noticed that the
revenue records show that the suit property is standing in the
name of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has further
noticed the contention of the appellants that the second appeal
is pending before this Court. However, it has been noticed that
there was no interim order passed in the second appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16776
7. The Trial Court after considering the case of
the parties has allowed I.A.No.1 and granted the injunction as
claimed by the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff has made
out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience also
lies in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the Trial Court exercised its
jurisdiction in granting the injunction as sought for in I.A.No.1.
8. The First Appellate Court upon re-appreciation
of the factual aspects of the matter has affirmed the exercise of
discretion by the Trial Court.
9. The appellants have failed in demonstrating
that they were in any manner dispossessed from the suit
property pursuant to the orders passed in FDP No.30/2017. The
appellants have not demonstrated that they were in possession
of the suit property as on the date of the suit. The rights of the
parties with respect to the decree passed in O.S.No.115/2005
are stated to be pending consideration before this Court in
second appeal. The decree in FDP No.30/2017 has already been
drawn.
10. The relevant aspect of the matter has been
adequately appreciated by the Trial Court and the First
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16776
Appellate Court. The Trial Court having exercised its discretion
in granting the injunction as sought for by the plaintiff and the
First Appellate Court having affirmed the exercise of the said
discretion, the appellants have failed in demonstrating that the
exercise of discretion by the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court is in any manner erroneous and is liable to be interfered
with.
11. In view of the aforementioned, the writ
petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
12. The findings recorded by the Trial Court while
adjudicating upon I.A.No.1 or the First Appellate Court in
M.A.No.4/2024 as well as this Court in the present petition, is
limited to the consideration of the case of the parties on
I.A.No.1.
13. The Trial Court shall proceed further with the
suit uninfluenced by the observations made by the Trial Court,
the First Appellate Court or by this Court.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
