Karnataka High Court
Sri K S Swamy vs Mr. Rakesh on 26 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22416
W.P. No.22062/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.22062/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.S. SWAMY
S/O KOLANDAI SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT # 252, NEAR PS
BANNERAGHATTA
Digitally signed
by RUPA V BENGALURU-560083.
...PETITIONER
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K.S. ADV.,)
karnataka
AND:
1. MR. RAKESH
S/O SAMPANGIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.
2. SMT. PRABHAVATHI
W/O SAMPANGIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2
R/AT NEW GURAPPANAPALYA
2ND CROSS, BANNERAGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560083.
3. MR. SAMPANGIRAMAIAH
S/O LATE T. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT KEMPANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PATEEL G.S. ADV., FOR R1 & R2
V/O/DTD:12.01.2023 NOTICE IN R/O R3 IS D/W)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22416
W.P. No.22062/2019
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT
OR ORDERS IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI DECLARING
THAT THE DIVERGENT FINDING OF THE LEARNED III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT
AT ANEKAL (ANNX-E) ON HIS FILE IN M.A.NO.5021/2017 IN HIS
ORDER DATED 28.04.2018 IS BAD IN LAW AND NOT SUSTAINABLE.
ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI DECLARING THAT THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2017
PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.199/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL (ANNX-F) IS VALID IN LAW
AND SUSTAINABLE THROUGHOUT, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
& ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"a) Issue appropriate writ or orders in
the nature of writ of Certiorari declaring that
the divergent finding of the learned III
Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Rural District, Sit at Anekal (Annexure-E) on
his file in MA.No.5021/2017 in his order
dated 28.04.2018 is bad in law and not
sustainable;
b) Issue appropriate writ or orders in
the nature of writ of certiorari declaring that
the order the order dated 20.09.2017 passed
on I.A. No.II in O.S.No.199/2011 on the file
of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Anekal
(Annexure F) is valid in law and sustainable
throughout, to meet the ends of justice.
c) Issue appropriate writ or orders or
directions as the case may be against the
NC: 2025:KHC:22416
HC-KAR
respondents as this Hon'ble Court deems
just and proper while moulding the relief
including cost of this litigation throughout, in
the interest of justice."
2. Sri.Manjunath K.S., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for
declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and also
sought for setting aside the judgment and decree dated
09.02.2005 passed in O.S. No.18/2000. In the said suit,
the trial Court entertained the application filed by the
petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of
the CPC and granted interim protection vide order dated
20.09.2017. However, the Appellate Court without
assigning cogent reasons at paragraph No.40 recorded the
finding that there is a dispute with regard to the
identification of the suit schedule property by ignoring the
sale deeds produced by the petitioner and reversed the
order of the trial Court vide order dated 28.04.2018 which
is challenged before this Court. It is submitted that the
NC: 2025:KHC:22416
HC-KAR
petitioner has constructed residential premises in Schedule
'A' property and carrying on business in Schedule 'B'
property from the date of purchase of the suit schedule
properties under the registered sale deeds dated
15.10.1996 and 21.05.2004. It is submitted that the
respondents/defendants claimed that they have purchased
schedule 'B' property, showing the property as a
Gramathana property assessment No.122. It is submitted
that absolutely there is no dispute with regard to the
identification of the property and till the suit is disposed of
on merits, the petitioner needs protection as the
respondents are interrupting his possession. It is
submitted that sufficient material was placed before the
trial Court which has been appreciated and injunction was
granted. However, the Appellate Court exceeded the
jurisdiction and recorded the finding contrary to the
material available on record. Hence, he seeks to interfere
with the order of the Appellate Court and allow the
petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:22416
HC-KAR
3. Per contra, Sri.Pateel G.S., learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the
impugned order and submits that defendant No.1's
grandfather purchased the property from one Dandappa
and the said Dandappa has purchased the property from
Kamalabai. It is submitted that grandfather of defendant
No.1 has purchased the property under the registered sale
deed dated 08.03.1996 and his vendor has purchased it
from the original owner, Kamalabhai under the registered
sale deed dated 21.09.1989 and the said property comes
within the jurisdiction of Gramathana. Hence, the
assessment number was assigned and he is in possession
of the property, which has been rightly considered by the
Appellate Court and recorded a finding. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the
respondents and meticulously perused the material
available on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:22416
HC-KAR
5. The parties to the proceedings have advanced
various contentions with regard to their title, possession
and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The
petitioner claims that he has acquired the suit schedule
property by two registered sale deeds dated 15.10.1996
and 21.05.2004. The respondent No.1 claims that his
grandfather Narayanappa purchased Schedule 'B' property
from one Dandappa under the registered sale deed dated
08.03.1996. The said Dandappa purchased the suit
schedule property from one Kamalabai under the
registered sale deed dated 21.09.1989. Be that it may be,
the scope of this petition to be find out the prima facie
possession and title over the suit schedule properties by
the party to suit. The trial Court recorded the finding and
passed a temporary injunction order on 20.09.2017 which
was on force till the disposal of MA.No.5021/2017 by the
Appellate Court vide order dated 28.04.2018, which came
to be challenged before this Court in the present petition.
This Court on 11.06.2020, directed the parties to maintain
NC: 2025:KHC:22416
HC-KAR
status quo over the suit schedule properties, which came
to be continued till this day. In my considered view, the
finding recorded by both the Courts need not be gone into
at this stage, as the matter is now posted for evidence
before the trial Court and no purpose would be served by
recording the finding with regard to the title or the
possession over the suit schedule properties. The interest
of justice would be met if the parties are directed to
maintain status quo. In other words, the interim order
granted by this Court on 11.06.2020 is continued so that
the parties can adjudicate their rights before the pending
suit. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion with regard to the orders passed by the trial Court
on 20.09.2017 on IA No.II filed under Order 39 Rules 1 &
2 and r/w Section 151 of CPC., the order dated
28.04.2018 passed in MA.No.5021/2017. For the
aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is disposed of.
NC: 2025:KHC:22416
HC-KAR
ii) The parties are directed to maintain
status quo with regard to the possession over
the suit schedule properties till the disposal of
the suit.
iii) The trial court is directed to dispose
of the suit as expeditiously as possible, not
later than 8 months from the date of
production of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
