[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shekshavali vs M Shamida Begum on 21 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:404
MFA No. 206385 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 206385 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHEKSHAVALI S/O IMAMSAB YATMARI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. MAHAMMED YUSUF S/O SHEKSHVALI YATMARI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL R/O. NEAR NOORANI MASJID
MAHEBOOBIYA COLONY, WARD NO.19, SINDHANUR,
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SMT. M. SHAMIDA BEGUM W/O M. GANISAB,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. 676/3, WARD NO.15, BHARATI NAGAR,
AMARAVATHI, POST. HOSPET, TQ.HOSPET,
DIST. BELLARI-583201.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:404
MFA No. 206385 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF
CPC , PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2025
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
SINDHANUR IN OS NO.333/2025 AND REJECT THE IA NO.1
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2,
calling in question the order dated 13.11.2025 passed
in O.S. No.333 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC, Sindhanur, whereby I.A. No.1 filed by
the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be allowed.
2. The facts for adjudication of this appeal are that
the plaintiff has instituted suit in O.S. No.333 of 2025
seeking relief of declaration in respect of the Schedule
'B' property, based on a registered Sale Deed dated
28.08.2007, along with consequential relief of
permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:404
HC-KAR
plaintiff filed I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and
2 of CPC seeking to restrain the defendants from
interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property.
3. The said application was contested by the
defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court, after
considering the pleadings and material placed on
record, by order dated 13.11.2025, allowed I.A. No.1
and restrained the defendants from interfering with
the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule
property. Feeling aggrieved by the said order,
defendant Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the present
appeal.
4. I have heard Sri. Mantesh Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, and Sri. Arunkumar
Amargundappa, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-plaintiff.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:404
HC-KAR
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended
that the Trial Court has failed to consider the
registered Sale Deed dated 28.08.2007, under which
the defendants have purchased 4 acres 25 guntas,
including phot kharab land, out of total extent of 7
acres from a common vendor. It is submitted that this
aspect of the matter was ignored while granting
temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-plaintiff invited the attention of the Court
to the registered Sale Deed dated 23.08.2007, under
which the plaintiff has purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.
No.911/B of Sindhanur village, from the very same
vendor and contended that the plaintiff is in lawful
possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly,
he sought dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:404
HC-KAR
7. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that
O.S. No.333 of 2025 is filed by the plaintiff seeking
relief of declaration with consequential relief of
permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property. It is also not in dispute that both the plaintiff
and the defendants have purchased their respective
extent of land from a common vendor.
8. A perusal of the registered sale deeds relied upon
by both sides would indicate that the total extent of
land in Sy. No.911/B of Sindhanur village is 7 acres.
After excluding the land sold in favour of the plaintiff
(2 acres) and the defendants (4 acres 25 guntas), an
extent of 15 guntas still remains. The inter se dispute
regarding the exact identification, possession, and
entitlement over the remaining extent requires
adjudication in a full-fledged trial.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:404
HC-KAR
9. The Trial Court, while considering I.A. No.1, has
recorded detailed finding in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the
impugned order after considering the material on
record.
10. It is well settled principle that an Appellate Court
would not interfere with an order granting temporary
injunction unless the discretion exercised by the Trial
Court is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or capricious.
No such grounds are made out in the present case.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that
no interference is called for with the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
CT:PK
