Karnataka High Court
Sri.Vijayendra Rao vs Sri.Satynarayana Rao on 19 March, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11449
WP No. 1374 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1374 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.VIJAYENDRA RAO
S/O HANUMANTHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT GANDHINAGARA
SHIRALAKOPPA, SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577428.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G L VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PURNACHANDRA M PURANIK., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.SATYANARAYANA RAO
S/O PRAHALLAD RAO
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A R/AT GANDHINAGARA
Location: HIGH SHIRALAKOPPA,SHIKARIPURA TALUK
COURTOF SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577428.
KARNATAKA
2. SMT SUNANDA K R
WIFE OF RAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT KUMARANAHALLI POST
MALEBENNURU, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11449
WP No. 1374 of 2025
(BY SRI.JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRUTHIVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED: 16.12.2024 IN M.A.NO. 17/2024
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
SHIKARIPURA (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed by defendant No.1 under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the
order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Shikaripura in M.A.No.17/2024, whereby the
appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the order
passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Shikaripura
in O.S.No.366/2023 dated 27.04.2024 was set aside.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction. Along
with the plaint, he filed an application under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction
against the defendants. The trial court, by order dated
NC: 2025:KHC:11449
27.04.2024 dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by
the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Appellate
Court in M.A.No.17/2024. The Appellate Court allowed the
appeal and granted temporary injunction order. Being
aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 is before this
Court.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner/defendant No.1 raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the suit schedule property is the inam
land, it was a joint family property of Hanumantha Rao
and Prahallada Rao. Only for the purpose of convenience
of cultivation, khata and mutation in respect of the
schedule property it was agreed to be made in the name
of father of the plaintiff/respondent herein.
(ii) Secondly, there was no partition among the
family members in respect of the suit schedule property.
Since it is an inam land, there is a bar under the Act for
partition of the property among the family members
before the re-grant.
NC: 2025:KHC:11449
(iii) Thirdly, with the consent of the other family
members, the land has been granted in the name of
Prahallad Rao. Even today, they are cultivating the
property jointly. Therefore, no injunction can be granted
against the co-owner of the property. The trial court has
rightly rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rules
1 and 2 of CPC. In support of his contentions, he relied on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
T.RAMALINGESWARA RAO (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES AND ANOTHER vs. N.MADHAVA
RAO AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 4 SCC 608.
(iv) Fourthly, the trial court, by exercising the
discretionary power has dismissed the application. The
scope of interference by the Appellate Court into the
reasoned order by the trial court is very limited. The
Appellate Court, contrary to the materials available on
record has allowed the appeal. In support of his
contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court
NC: 2025:KHC:11449
in the case of WANDER LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. ANTOX
INDIA P. LTD. reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727.
(v) Fifthly, since the suit schedule property is the
joint family property, even though it is granted in favour of
Prahllada Rao, the grant enures to the benefit of the entire
family, the same is not exclusive properties of the grantee.
In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of
this Court in the case of SHIVAPPA FAKIRAPPA
SHETSANADI vs. KANNAPPA MALLAPPA
SHETSANADI reported in ILR 1987 Kar.3155.
(vi) Lastly, when the title of the plaintiff is doubtful,
the suit for injunction is not maintainable. To that effect,
he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
ANATHULA SUDHAKAR vs. P.BUCHI REDDY (DEAD)
BY LRs. AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594.
Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition.
4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 raised the following
contentions:
NC: 2025:KHC:11449
(i) Firstly, the suit schedule property is the inam
land. Before re-grant of the land, in the year 1965, there
was a partition among the family members. In the
partition, this property was allotted to the plaintiff's father.
Since there is no bar under the Village Officers Abolition
Act for the partition of the inam land among the family
members, after the re-grant it will enure to the benefit of
plaintiff's father.
(ii) Secondly, on the basis of the partition, there was
mutation entry in the name of father of the plaintiff in MR
No.1/66-67. From the date of partition, the plaintiff was
in the possession of the property.
(iii) Thirdly, once the land has been re-granted to the
original grantee, it will enure to the benefit of the plaintiff
on the basis of the partition. In support of his contention,
he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of
LAKSHMANA GOWDA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMETN OF LAW AND PARLIAMETARY
NC: 2025:KHC:11449
AFFAIRS, BAGALORE - 1 AND OTHERS (W.P.No.
2613/1979 disposed of on 03.07.1980).
(iv) Fourthly, the defendant himself has admitted
that there was partition, suit schedule property was
allotted to the share of Prahllada Rao and there was a
mutation entry, i.e., MR No.1/66-67. Even in the
proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner he has
admitted that there was a partition among the family
members and the property in dispute was allotted to
Prahallada Rao and the mutation entries made in the year
1965 has not been challenged till 2023. Therefore, the
Appellate Court has rightly granted an order of injunction.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the writ papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property
is the inam land. It is also not in dispute that it was the
joint family property of Hanumantha Rao and Prahallada
Rao. The specific contention of the plaintiff is that, before
NC: 2025:KHC:11449
re-grant in the year 1965, there was a partition among the
family members. This property has been allotted to
Prahallada Rao. Pursuant to the partition, there was
mutation entry in M.R.No.1/66-67. From that day, the
plaintiff was in the possession of the property. It is also
the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the partition,
parties have acted upon the partition and after the re-
grant of the land, the property will enure to the benefit of
Prahallada Rao on the basis of the partition. Even the land
was also granted in the name of Prahallada Rao. The
specific contention of the defendant is that for the purpose
of convenience of cultivation, khata and mutation in
respect of suit schedule property it was agreed to be made
in the name of the father of the plaintiff. They have
denied the partition, i.e., Jubani Hissa in 1965. But in the
pleadings, he has contended that he was in the possession
of the property as a co-owner, therefore, there is
inconsistency in the pleadings of the plaintiff. The
defendants also contended that it is the joint family
property, they were cultivating the property jointly and
NC: 2025:KHC:11449
they have also taken an inconsistent plea that there was
oral agreement that plaintiff's father has agreed to sell the
suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of
Rs.6,000/-. Both the parties have taken inconsistent pleas
regarding the ownership as well as the possession is
concerned.
7. Since both the parties are inconsistent in pleading
the ownership as well as the possession, this issue has to
be decided only by a ful-fledged trial.
8. In view of the above, the following order is
passed:
(i) The writ petition is disposed of.
(ii) The order passed by the Appellate Court
dated 16.12.2024 in M.A.No.17/2024 is
modified to the effect that, the parties are
directed to maintain status-quo in respect of
the suit schedule property, till the disposal of
the suit.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11449
(iii) The trial court is directed to dispose of the
suit on merits, in accordance with law,
without being influenced by the observations
made in the course of this order.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
