Karnataka High Court
Sri Rangappa vs Smt Sannamane Halappara on 24 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
W.P. No.51786/2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.51786/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RANGAPPA
S/O CHATHRERA NEELAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O GOPANAL VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK &
DISTRICT-577514.
Digitally signed SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
by RUPA V AMENDED AS PER ORDER DTD:10.08.2022.
Location: High
1(a) GANGAMMA
Court of W/O LATE RANGAPPA
karnataka AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O. GOPANAL VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE-577001.
1(b) MANJUNATH R
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O. GOPANAL VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE-577001.
2. SRI. KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O CHATHRERA NEELAPPA
AGRICULTURIST
R/O RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577514.
3. SRI. SHARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O CHATHRERA NEELAPPA
AGRICULTURIST
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
W.P. No.51786/2014
HC-KAR
R/O RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577514.
4. SRI. GANGADHARA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O CHATHRERA NEELAPPA
AGRICULTURIST
R/O RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577514.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADV.,
AND ALSO PROPOSED LR'S OF P1 i.e., P2 (a&b))
AND:
1. SMT. SANNAMANE HALAPPARA
GANGAMMA (JOGAMMA)
W/O RUDRAPPA
AGRICULTURIST
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O. MATTIKAL KERE
KAIDAL POST
DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577514.
2. SMT. KARIYAJJARA SAVITRAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O MALALKERE POST
DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577 514.
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
2(a) CHANDRAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
@ KARIYAPPA, MAJOR
R/O KODIHALLI
DAVANAGERE TALUK-577001.
2(b) MANJAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
@ KARIYAPPA, MAJOR
R/O KODIHALLI
DAVANAGERE TALUK-577001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
W.P. No.51786/2014
HC-KAR
2(c) ANNAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
@ KARIYAPPA, MAJOR
R/O KODIHALLI
DAVANAGERE TALUK-577001.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DTD:09.09.2024)
3. SRI. KARIYAJJARA ASHOK
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O KODIHALLI
MALALKERE POST
DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577514.
4. SRI. RAMAGONDANAHALLI RAMAPPA
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O SHAGALE-577002
DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577002.
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
4(a) RENUKAMMA
W/O RAMAGONDANAHALLI RAMAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/O SHAGALE
DAVANAGERE TALUK-577002.
4(b) MAHESHA
S/O RAMAGONDANAHALLI RAMAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/O SHAGALE
DAVANAGERE TALUK-577002.
4(c) SUDHA
D/O RAMAGONDANAHALLI RAMAPPA
W/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/O KODIHALLI VILLAGE
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
W.P. No.51786/2014
HC-KAR
DAVANAGERE TALUK-577001.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDERS DTD:09.09.2024)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.R. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3
R4 (a & R4 (b) ARE SERVED)
V/O/DT:09.09.2024 SERVICE AGAINST R2 (a) TO R2(c) &
R4 (c) HELD SUFFICIENT)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN
M.A.NO.8/2014 DTD.16.10.2014 VIDE ANNEX-M AND SET ASIDE THE
SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS M.A.NO.8/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE BY THUS
CONFIRMING THE ORDER DTD.29.1.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.747/2012
VIDE ANNEX-K & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the
order dated 16.10.2014 passed in M.A.No.8/2014 by the I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere.
2. Heard.
3. Sri.R.Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners filed a suit for mandatory
injunction against the respondents to execute a rectification
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
HC-KAR
deed for correcting the survey number of the suit schedule
property from 49/5 to 47/7. In the said suit, the petitioners
filed an application seeking temporary injunction against the
respondents during the pending of the suit. It is submitted that
the Trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application
after hearing the parties. However, the Appellate Court
reversed the order of the Trial Court by the impugned order. It
is further submitted that the deceased-petitioner No.1
purchased the suit schedule property from one Lakkavva.
However, in the sale deed, an inadvertent mistake with regard
to the survey number had crept in. The boundaries mentioned
in the sale deed dated 18.02.1963 tally with the boundaries of
Sy.No.47/7 of Kabbur Village, Davanagere Taluk. The
possession of the petitioners is evident from the document
placed before the Court. The Gazette notification dated
02.12.1965 indicates that 13 guntas of the land has been
acquired in Sy.No.47/7 wherein Neelappa is shown as
anubhavadar. Further, communication dated 15.10.2013 at
Annexure-J of the respondent No.1 to the Tahsildar clearly
indicates that the petitioners are in possession of the suit
schedule property. The Tahsildar forwarded the said
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
HC-KAR
communication at Anneuxre-J to the jurisdictional police
indicating that the respondent No.1 has sought for police
protection to dispossess the petitioners from the suit schedule
property. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on
the mahazar at Annexure-H dated 16.05.2012 which further
makes it clear that the petitioners have filed an application for
effecting the entry in the RTC in respect of the suit schedule
property and at that time, the said mahazar was drawn which
also establishes the possession of the petitioners over the suit
schedule property. It is also submitted that the Appellate Court
did not appreciate the documentary evidence placed by the
petitioners and proceeded to record its finding on title, which is
impermissible. The Appellate Court, based on the recent
entries in the RTC, allowed the appeal. It is submitted that
now the respondents, after the disposal of the appeal are trying
to dispossess the petitioners high-handedly. Hence, he seeks
to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, Sri.K.R.Patil, learned counsel for the
contesting respondents supports the impugned order of the
Appellate Court and submits that the revenue records in
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
HC-KAR
respect of Sy.No.47/7 stand in the name of the respondents
and the petitioners failed to prove that they have purchased
Sy.No.47/7 from its owner. It is submitted that the Appellate
Court considered the entire material on record and passed a
detailed order by recording the prima facie opinion that the
petitioners failed to make out a ground for injunction and
hence, allowed the appeal. He seeks to dismiss the petition.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the material available on record. I have given my
anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both
sides.
6. The petitioners filed a suit for mandatory injunction
seeking for execution of rectification deed for correcting the
survey number of the suit schedule property from 49/5 to 47/7.
An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed by the petitioners seeking
prayer against the respondents restraining them from
interfering with the possession of the petitioners with regard to
the suit schedule property. The said application came to be
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
HC-KAR
allowed on 29.01.2014. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed
M.A.No.8/2014. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal by
setting aside the order of the Trial Court. The case of the
petitioners that one Lakkavva sold the suit schedule property
under the registered sale deed dated 18.02.1963 in favour of
the petitioner No.1, now deceased, and the petitioners are in
enjoyment and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule
property from the last 50 years. It is contended that the
petitioners recently noticed that there is a mistake with regard
to the survey number in the registered sale deed dated
18.02.1963. It is the further case of the petitioners that the
boundaries of the sale deed and their possession tally with each
other and as per the same, the correct survey number of their
property is 47/7 of Kabbur Village, Davanagere Taluk.
7. The petitioners, in order to establish the possession
over the suit schedule property have produced Gazette
notification dated 02.12.1965, wherein certain properties were
acquired including 13 guntas of Sy.No.47/7. The name of one
Neelappa, S/o Gangappa is shown as anubhavadar in the said
notification and Neelappa is the father of the petitioners. The
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
HC-KAR
communication at Annexure-J dated 15.10.2013 sent by the
respondent No.1 to the jurisdictional Tahsildar clearly indicates
that the petitioners are in possession of the suit schedule
property and sought for possession from them. The
jurisdictional Tahsildar sent the said communication dated
15.10.2013 to the jurisdictional police forwarding the request of
the respondent No.1 for police protection to take possession.
The mahazar drawn by the revenue officials in front of the
villagers dated 16.05.2012 at Annexure-H indicates that the
petitioners are in possession of the suit schedule property. The
Appellate Court mainly relied on Form No.1 and the RTC in
respect of Sy.No.47/7 and came to the conclusion that the
name of Kampalavva is shown as the owner and further
recorded that the petitioners have not placed any scrap of
paper to show that Lakkavva was the owner of the suit
schedule property and proceeded to vacate the injunction
order. The finding of the Appellate Court is that Lakkavva sold
the property in favour of the petitioners without any right over
it and such sale deed is not binding on the real owner of
Sy.No.47/7. In my considered view, the aforesaid finding
recorded by the Appellate Court with regard to the title of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
HC-KAR
petitioners was uncalled for as there is no counter claim of the
respondents with regard to the title. Admittedly, the suit is for
mandatory injunction seeking for rectification of the incorrect
survey number in the sale deed of the petitioners. The
Appellate Court has recorded a perverse finding on the title of
the petitioners which was not the subject matter of the appeal.
It is trite law that whether to grant or refuse a temporary
injunction is the sole discretion of the trial court and the scope
of the Court of appeal is simply to consider whether the Trial
Court has exercised its discretion properly. The Appellate court
must not approach the case like a Trial Court. My view gains
support from the celebrated judgment of this Court in the case
of SRI GOWRISHANKARA SWAMIGALU V SRI
SIDDHAGANGA MUTT1. It would be useful extract the para
10 and 11 of the aforementioned judgment as follows:
"10. The inquiry by me should not go beyond the
foregoing and certainly does not extend to
substituting my views to that of the learned Civil
Judge. This again is trite law and a host of decisions
of this Court make the aforesaid position very clear.
I may refer in passing to the decision of His Lordship
ILR 1989 Kar 1701
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
HC-KAR
the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Govinda Bhat (as His
Lordship then was) in Lakshminarasimhiah v. Yalakki
Gowda [1965 (1) Mys. L.J. 370.] . Adverting to the
scope of an appeal from the order of the trial Judge
granting or refusing to grant an interim injunction,
His Lordship said:
"What the Court of appeal has to consider is
simply whether or not the Judge who dealt
with the matter has properly exercised the
discretion which he undoubtedly possesses.
The Appellate Judge is not to approach the
case as if he were the trial Judge. The granting
or refusing of injunction is a matter resting in
the sound discretion with the trial Court and
consequently no injunction will be granted
whenever it will operate oppressively or
inequitably or contrary to the real justice of the
case.
11. The decision in Lakshminarasimhaiah's
case [1965 (1) Mys. L.J. 370.] has been followed by
Venkataswamy, J. (as His Lordship then was)
in Rangamma v. Krishnappa [1968 (1) Mys. L.J.
552.] . His Lordship held:
"Granting or refusing of temporary
injunction rests on the sound exercise of
discretion by the Court. Such exercise of
discretion cannot be lightly interfered with by
the Appellate Court, unless it is shown that
such exercise of discretion is unreasonable or
capricious. That a different view was possible
on the facts and circumstances of the case by
itself will not be sufficient to interfere with the
order."
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
HC-KAR
Both these decisions have been referred to and
followed with approval by Santosh J. (now of revered
memory) in Laxmimanojana v. Sujnandra. [1970 (2)
Mys. L.J. 82.] His Lordship in setting out the
guidelines directing the exercise of power by the
Appellate Court in these matters and in setting out
the circumstances under which the Court of appeal
could interfere in an appeal from an interlocutory
order, made the following enunciation which bears
reproduction:
"If the discretion has been exercised by the
trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner,
the fact that the Appellate Court would have
taken a different view may not justify
interference with the trial Court's exercise of
discretion; but if it appears to the Appellate
Court that in exercising its discretion the trial
Court has acted unreasonably or capriciously
or has ignored relevant facts then it would be
open to the Appellate Court to interfere with
the trial Court's exercise of discretion."
(Emphasis supplied)"
8. It is clear from the aforementioned enunciation of
law that the scope of the Court of appeal is limited, yet in the
case on hand, the Appellate Court has gone above and beyond
the said scope and even recorded a finding on the title of the
petitioners, such an exercise by the Appellate Court is
impermissible. The Appellate Court, based on the RTC,
recorded the finding with regard to the possession. Admittedly,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
HC-KAR
the RTC in respect of Sy.No.47/7 was pursuant to the order
dated 05.09.2013 of the Assistant Commissioner which is
evident from Column 11 of the RTC at Annexure-G. The sale
deed in question is of the year 1963 and the petitioners are
claiming that they are in uninterrupted possession of the suit
schedule property based on the said sale deed and the
petitioners have produced number of documents to
substantiate their claim with regard to possession of the suit
schedule property. I am of the considered view that the
petitioners have made out a prima facie case for grant of
injunction. A perusal of the written statement, the objections
to the application and the material available on record clearly
demonstrate that the petitioners are in possession of the suit
schedule property and the balance of convenience lie in their
favour. I am of the considered view that the suit is of the year
2012 and if at this stage, the petitioners' possession is
disturbed, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and
irreparable injury would cause to the petitioners. On the other
hand, no hardship or prejudice would be caused to the
respondents if interim protection is provided to the petitioners.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22034
HC-KAR
9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 16.10.2014 passed in
M.A. No.8/2014 by the I Addl. Sr. Civil Judge at
Davanagere, is set aside. Consequently,
M.A.No.8/2014 is dismissed by confirming the order
dated 29.01.2014 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge,
Davanagere on I.A. 1 in O.S.No.747/2012.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
