Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sattewwa W/O. Dundappa Arakeri vs Smt. Sushilawwa W/O. Lakkappa Belagali on 12 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787
WP No. 103680 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 103680 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SATTEWWA W/O. DUNDAPPA ARAKERI
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KENGALAGUTTI-586125,
TAL. & DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. P.G NAIK, ADV)
AND:
1. SMT. SUSHILAWWA
W/O. LAKKAPPA BELAGALI,
Digitally signed AGE. 51 YEARS,
by OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR R/O. YADAHALLI - 587117,
Location: High TAL. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
2. SMT. SANYAWWA
W/O. RAJAPPA BELAGALI
AGE. 47 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. YADAHALLI - 587117,
TAL. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. KASTUREWWA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787
WP No. 103680 of 2022
W/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE. 54 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ANTAPUR-587313,
TAL. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT.
4. SMT. NEELAWWA
W/O. SIDDAPPA TUNGAL
AGE. 49 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BIDARI-587313,
TAL. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT.
5. SMT. RUDRAPPAGOUDA
S/O. RAMANAGOUDA
PATIL, AGE. 35 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ANTAPUR-587313,
TAL. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. I.K. KABBUR, ADV FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED IN MA NO. 5001/2022 DATED 6-8-2022 BY
THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BAGALKOT TO
SIT AT JAMKHANDI ANNEXURE-H AND ALSO THE ORDER
PASSED ON IA NO.I DATED ON 28-1-2022 IN
O.S.NO.233/2021 BY THE PRICIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, MUDHOL AT ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787
WP No. 103680 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This writ petition is filed challenging the order on
I.A.I dated 28.01.2022 passed by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol and the judgment
passed in M.A. No.5001/2022 dated 06.08.2022 by the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at
Jamkhandi.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ
petition are as under:
The petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate
possession in respect of suit schedule property against the
respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an
application in I.A.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order of temporary
injunction restraining the respondents from alienating,
mortgaging or transferring the suit schedule property
pending disposal of the said suit. The respondents
opposed the said application by filing objections. The trial
Court after considering the material on record dismissed
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787
the application i.e., I.A.I. The petitioners aggrieved by
the order on I.A.I, preferred an appeal in M.A.
No.5001/2022. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal
vide order dated 06.08.2022. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
both the Courts below have committed an error in passing
the impugned judgment. She submits that the petitioner
never intended to include the registered gift deed.
Execution of gift deed is an outcome of fraud. The said
aspect was not properly considered by the Courts below.
Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the writ
petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the petitioner executed a registered gift deed
and kept quiet for more than 12 years and thereafter, she
filed a suit for partition and separate possession. He
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787
submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not
maintainable and prima facie the case includes the
maintainability of the suit. Hence, the petitioner has not
made out a prima facie case for grant of interim order and
no balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner.
If injunction, as prayed for, is granted, the respondents
will be put to hardship. Hence, on these grounds, prays to
dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused and considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly, the plaintiffs executed a registered
gift deed in favour of defendant No.3 about 12 years back
and the plaintiffs did not challenge the registered gift
deed. From the recital of the registered gift deed, it
discloses that the petitioner had delivered the possession
of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.3 is in
possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a
registered gift deed. The trial Court recorded a finding
that the petitioners have filed a suit after 12 years from
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2787
the date of execution of a registered gift deed and held
that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case
for grant of interim order. The appellate Court, on re-
appreciation of the entire material on record, dismissed
the appeal. Both the Courts below have concurrently
recorded a finding of fact against the petitioner. The
scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India is very limited. The petitioner has not made out
any ground to interfere with the impugned order and the
judgment. I do not find any error in the order passed by
the trial Court and in the judgment passed by the
appellate Court.
8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
kmv
CT: BSB
