[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Panduranga vs Nagaraj on 25 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.107458 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. PANDURANGA S/O. MAHADEV HARIJAN @ KAMBLE,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
2. SHIVAJI S/O. MAHADEV HARIJAN @ KAMBLE,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
3. MANJULA W/O. SHIVAJI NAYAR @ HARIJAN @ KAMBLE,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. ANGANWADI WORKER
4. YALLAVVA W/O. MAHADEV HARIJAN @ KAMBLE,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD
5. BHARATI W/O. KALMESH HARIJAN @ KAMBLE,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR (ALL RESIDENTS OF ALLIED AREA,
Location: HIGH COURT 3 NUMBER GATE, NEAR ANGANWADI,
OF KARNATAKA DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY T.BANGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NAGARAJ D/O. DANIEL DARIYAMLA,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NEAR WATER TANK, MARUTI NAGAR,
DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. PRASHANT S/O. SUNDAR SHETTY,
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. LIG-46, BEHIND POST OFFICE,
AMBEVADI, DANDELI - 581 325,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
3. SURESH S/O. KAILASCHAND JOSHI,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. SARVESHWAR SWEET MART,
BARCHI ROAD, CHOUDARI GARTE,
DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
4. MARUTI S/O. BALAPPA BANDAVANKAR,
AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. NEAR KULAGI ROAD, DANDELI - 581 325,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
5. ANIL S/O. NAGAPPA KOLUR,
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. NEAR ISHWAR TEMPLE, KULAGI ROAD,
DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
6. ARATI W/O. ANIL KOLUR,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEAR ISHWAR TEMPLE, KULGAI ROAD,
DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
7. VEDA D/O. ANIL KOLUR,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEAR ISHWAR TEMPLE, KULGAI ROAD,
DANDELI - 581 325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYKUMAR S.PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH V.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THIS WRIT
PETITION. B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS DATED
01.09.2025 PASSED IN M.A.NOS.3/2025 AND 4/2025 BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALIYAL ANNEXED HEREBY AS
ANNEXURE-A AND B. C) RESTORE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
DATED 25.02.2025 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DANDELI IN O.S.NO.290/2024 ANNEXED HEREBY AS ANNEXURE-C.
D) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 10.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CAV ORDER
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders
passed in M.A.Nos.3/2025 and 4/2025 dated 01.09.2025 by the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Haliyal at Haliyal, Uttara Kannada.
2. The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in
the suit. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed O.S.No.290/2024
against the defendants seeking relief of permanent injunction
with respect to the suit property. In the suit, both the plaintiffs
and defendants had filed applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1
and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC. I.A.No.I is filed by the plaintiffs
seeking ad-interim temporary injunction against the defendants
restraining them from obstructing the peaceful possession, use
and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property
till disposal of the suit. The defendants had filed I.A.No.V under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC against the
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
plaintiffs seeking ad-interim temporary injunction against the
plaintiffs restraining them from obstructing the peaceful
possession, use and enjoyment of the defendants in and over the
suit properties by way of construction till the disposal of the suit.
3. The trial Court by order dated 25.02.2025 had dismissed
I.A.No.I filed by the plaintiffs and allowed I.A.No.V filed by the
defendants. While passing the said order, the trial Court had
observed that the plaintiffs' claims to own the suit property
through a Registered Sale Deed and are in actual possession.
After the incident, the defendants continued to cause disturbance
and obstruction. According to the defendants, they are farming 5
acres of agricultural land, which they claim belong to their
ancestors and they are cultivating the land since 1924 without
interference from the original owner. In the year 1976, Mr.
Mahadevappa S/o Holayappa Harijan sought to enter his name in
the revenue records which was rejected. Thereafter, the
defendants' father challenged the denial before the High Court of
Karnataka in WP.No.3080-3080A/1980. After hearing both side
arguments, the High Court ordered the Land Tribunal to conduct
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
fresh enquiry, which subsequently rejected the application
through order dated 26.05.1994.
4. The defendants' case is that the earlier owners in
collusion with Land Tribunal officials, wrongly secured a ruling in
their favour without conducting a proper enquiry. They also
mentioned that the land was designated as non-agricultural land
in the year 1957, but the defendants have been using the land
for agricultural purposes since 1924. The decision of the Tribunal
was challenged in WP.No.19992/1994, but it was dismissed by
the High Court. It is the case of the defendants that they are in
occupation of the lands since 1924 for their livelihood.
5. The trial Court had observed that in support of I.A.No.I,
the plaintiffs have produced the photos, Notices, FIR, CD, RTC,
order for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural
purpose, order passed in Writ petition No.19992/1994, vacant
land Sale deed dated 27.09.2024, correction deed dated
12.11.2024, Form No.3, FIR with complaint, No encumbrance
certificate, Photos, Acknowledgment, Endorsement, Order in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.456/2024 and a Temporary injunction
order. In support of I.A.No.V, defendants have produced the
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
RTC, requisition for the supply of electricity, Tax paid receipts,
Electricity bill, objection regarding the registration of the sale
deed, photos. The trial Court has observed that from going
through the allegations from both the sides, in the very outset, it
can be seen that the title of the suit property itself is in dispute.
It is observed that in case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi
Reddy1, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that when there is a
cloud over the title of the suit property, a mere suit for injunction
is not sufficient, especially in case of vacant land.
6. The trial Court had observed that the plaintiffs assert
that they possess documents supporting their claims. At this
juncture, it is essential to examine the presumption established
under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. According to Section 133
of the Act which addresses the presumption concerning the
entries in official records, an entry in the Record of Rights as well
as a certified entry in the Register of Mutations of the patta book
shall be deemed accurate until proven otherwise or until a new
entry is lawfully made. Therefore, the presumption outlined in
Section 133 is not definitive rather it is subject to rebuttal.
1
2008 AIR (SC) 2033
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
Consequently, the mere existence of documents in favour of the
plaintiffs does not automatically validate their claim to
possession of the disputed property. A comprehensive trial is
necessary to determine the rightful possessor.
7. The trial Court had observed that upon reviewing the
documents submitted, particularly the photographs, it appears
that the defendants are in possession of the disputed property
and are actively cultivating it and accordingly had allowed
I.A.No.V filed by the defendants and dismissed the I.A.No.I filed
by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs had filed
M.A.Nos.3/2025 and 4/2025 which came to be allowed by order
dated 01.09.2025.
8. While allowing M.A.Nos.3/2025 and 4/2025, the
Appellate Court had observed that after perusal of the
documentary evidence including the pleadings placed by both the
parties, it reveals that suit property is originally owned by one
Ganoba Gopal Mirashi and he is having continuous title over the
property. It is the case of the respondent that through the oral
agreement held in the year 1924, they are in possession of the
suit property. After appearing before the trial Court in
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
O.S.No.290/2024, they produced no material documents except
photos with respect to the suit property. Further, there is no
such relevant document produced by the defendants to show the
alleged oral agreement held with the original owner in the year
1924. The plaintiffs have legal ownership and possession with
respect to suit schedule property on the strength of the
registered sale deed.
9. Further, the defendants claim their continuous
possession on oral agreement alleged to be held in the year
1924. Hence, registered sale deed prevails over oral agreement.
As per Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act, title of
immovable property only can pass through registered
instrument. There is no document from the defendants seeking
specific performance since 1924 till today. Hence, the alleged
possession unless protected under Section 53A of the T.P Act,
under the concept of doctrine of part performance. Since 1957,
there is a mention of non agricultural land in revenue records.
Hence, the alleged agricultural activity of the defendants may
itself appear doubtful. Hence, plaintiffs by holding registered sale
deed proved how they are connected to the suit schedule
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
property. The Appellate Court had found fault in the finding of
the trial Court relying on the judgment of Anthula Sudhakar
referred supra.
10. The Appellate Court had further discussed that the
revenue records of the suit property shows the nature of the land
as non-agricultural land. To that effect, plaintiffs have produced
authorized revenue documents which are none other than the
order passed by the D.C. in the year 1957, permitting to convert
the suit property into non-agricultural land in order to construct
the residential houses. Thereafter, it reveals that the father of
defendant Nos.1 and 2 including the propositus of other
defendants filed Form No.7 before the land granting authority
and that has been rejected. Same has been challenged by filing
WP.No.3080/1980 and 3080A/1980. Both petitions came to be
disposed off by directing the land granting authority to get
enquiry afresh. Accordingly fresh enquiry has been conducted
and Form No.7 filed by defendants' families has been rejected.
That order was challenged by filing WP.No.19992/1992. That
also was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court of
Karnataka has confirmed the disputed land not remained as an
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
agricultural land and the claimed occupancy rights has been
declined and accordingly order has been passed.
11. Further, it is observed that as per the argument of the
counsel, the adjoining land of the suit property is being
cultivated by the defendants to the extent of 33 guntas, in which
they have their house property and crops and hence by taking
advantage of their land situated adjoining the suit property, they
are claiming to be in possession of the suit property which is not
reliable and considerable. Apart from it, the valuable document
i.e., registered sale deed which is an instrument through which
plaintiffs have got right title and interest over the suit property.
Therefore, the legal possession over the suit property by the
plaintiffs is to be presumed in absence of any rival material
documents.
12. It is observed that as on the date of the suit, the
revenue documents show plaintiffs' possession. Hence, as per
Section 133 of the Land Tribunal Act, the deemed possession is
to be considered in favour of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the
name of the original owner Ganoba Gopal Mirashi has
continuously appeared in property extract including title column
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
and occupation column. Hence, the propositus of defendants has
not appeared in the other column to show their possession. The
oral agreement which is alleged to be held in favour of the
defendants' propositus is to be proved during trial. Hence, at this
stage, the possession over the suit property by the defendants is
not proved. On the contrary, plaintiffs have proved their
possession over suit property as on the date of the suit. Further,
they have proved interference of the defendants while enjoying
the suit property as defendants have lodged complaints under
Atrocity Act which creates mental agony which is nothing but
interference and obstruction in enjoying of the suit property with
possession. Further, due to such obstruction, plaintiffs have
faced inconvenience and hardship though they are having
balance of convenience through the registered instrument sale
deed.
13. The Appellate Court observed that the trial Court erred
by ignoring these necessary ingredients. Therefore, at this stage,
the plaintiffs have made out sufficient grounds or reasons to
interfere with the interim order passed in I.A.Nos.I and V in
O.S.No.290/2024 and accordingly, interim order passed on
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
I.A.Nos.I and V by the trial Court, Dandeli in O.S.No.290/2024
dated 25.02.2025 was set aside and the appeal filed by the
plaintiffs was allowed. The Appellate Court had set aside the
order that is passed in I.A.No.I and the same was directed to be
decided along with the main petition. The I.A.No.V that is filed by
the defendants seeking injunction was set aside. Aggrieved
thereby, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
argued in line with the reasons that are stated by the trial Court
while allowing I.A.No.V. It is submitted that the trial Court had
rightly considered I.A.No.V filed by the defendants and allowed
the same. It is submitted that right from the year 1924, they are
in possession of the property and when the suit is filed for bare
injunction, when the defendants are denying the title of the
plaintiffs, the suit for injunction is not maintainable. The trial
Court had rightly considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Anthula Sudhakar's case referred supra and rightly
held that the defendants are entitled for injunction. It is
submitted that the photographs that were filed before the trial
Court clearly shows that they are in possession of the property.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
This has been rightly appreciated and injunction was granted. It
is submitted that the defendants could satisfy the trial Court
about prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable
loss, whereas the plaintiffs are relying upon a latest document
and submits that they are in possession of the property, whereas
right from the year 1924, defendants and their predecessors are
in possession and occupation over the said suit property. All
these aspects were not appreciated by the Appellate court and
the reasoning that is given by the Appellate Court is contrary to
the material on record and it amounts to non appreciation of the
evidence that is available on record.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to
3/plaintiffs submits that the Appellate Court had considered the
evidence that is available on record and in fact the I.A.I that is
filed by the plaintiffs as it is agreed that it may be decided along
with the main appeal. The trial Court had not granted any
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and the Appellate Court has
rightly set aside the order passed in I.A.No.V. It is submitted
that orders that are passed by the High Court in several writ
petitions makes it crystal clear that the property is a non
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
agricultural land and the request on behalf of the defendants was
rejected and as the property is a non-agricultural property,
question of cultivating the same would not arise.
16. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. The plaintiffs claims title to the
property basing on a registered sale deed and according to them,
they are in occupation of the property and the defendant who is
in occupation of the adjoining land is trying to show that he is in
possession of the property and trying to occupy the same and in
support of the same, the plaintiffs have filed all the documents.
According to the defendants, they are in possession of the
property right from the year 1924 and it is non agricultural land.
By virtue of the proceedings in the year 1957, it shows that the
property is converted into a non agricultural land. The latest
judgment that is passed by the High Court in the year 1992
where the claim of the defendants is rejected and it is held to be
a non agricultural land. The predecessor in title of the plaintiffs
name is appearing in the records right from the beginning.
17. The Appellate Court by virtue of this order has not
granted any injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and has vacated
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2947
WP No. 107458 of 2025
HC-KAR
the injunction granted to the defendants. Defendants are relying
on the photographs. When the true owner of the property basing
on the documents has filed a suit for injunction, now there
cannot be any injunction against the true owner of the property.
At this stage, basing on the photographs, an injunction ought not
to have been granted by the trial Court. With regard to the other
allegations that are raised at the interlocutory stage, the trial
Court cannot go into all these issues at this stage and the
Appellate Court had rightly vacated the order passed in I.A.No.V
and in these circumstances, this Court finds no reasons to
interfere. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed by
affirming the order passed by the Appellate Court
in M.A.Nos.3/2025 and 4/2025.
ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MEG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
