[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Ningamma vs Shri Nagaraju on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
W.P. No.3284/2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.3284/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NINGAMMA
W/O LATE BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A. ANNUR VILLAGE
C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
Digitally signed MANDYA DISTRICT - 571428.
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY MR. SANATH KUMAR K.M. ADV.,)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SHRI. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE MARILINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. SHRI. SHIVARAJU
S/O SHRI NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
3. MISS. ANUSHA
D/O SHRI NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT ANNUR VILLAGE
C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571428.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
W.P. No.3284/2022
HC-KAR
4. SMT. ASHA
W/O SHRI RAGHU
D/O SHRI. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT. MARIGUDI BEEDI
K.M. DODDI, C.A. KERE HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571428.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHARVARI S. BHATT, ADV., FOR
MR. CHANDRASHEKAR H.B. ADV., FOR R1 TO R4)
*******
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD. 26.09.2021 PASSED IN M.A.NO.25/2020 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADDUR AS PER ANNX-
L. RESTORE THE ORDER DTD. 24.11.2020 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.1 FILED IN O.S. 392/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MADDUR AS PER
ANNX-H & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
W.P. No.3284/2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
26.09.2021 passed in M.A.No.25/2020 by the Senior Civil
Judge, Maddur (for short, 'the Appellate Court') and
further prayer to continue the order dated 24.11.2020
passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.392/2020 by the II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur (for short 'the
Trial Court').
2. Sri.Sanath Kumar K.M., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-
plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against
the defendants-respondents as they were interfering with
her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. It is submitted that the Trial Court
allowed the application filed by the plaintiff for temporary
injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering
with the possession. However, the defendants challenged
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
HC-KAR
the said order before the Appellate Court and the
Appellate Court, under the impugned order held that the
plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, however, failed
to establish interference from the defendants. With the
aforesaid finding, the appeal was allowed. It is further
submitted that the mother-in-law of the plaintiff purchased
the suit schedule property from the father of the
defendant No.1 in the year 1974 and after the death of the
her mother-in-law, the name of the plaintiff has continued
in the revenue records. The Appellate Court, without
appreciating the title, revenue records, possession and
interference by the other side, reversed the order of
injunction granted by the Trial Court. Hence, he seeks to
allow the petition.
3. Per contra, Miss Sharvari S.Bhat, learned
counsel appearing for Sri.Chandrashekar H.B., learned
counsel for the respondents supports the order of the
Appellate Court and submits that the Appellate Court has
taken note of the fact that a bald assertion is made with
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
HC-KAR
regard to the interference by the defendants. However,
nothing is placed before the Court to establish the factum
of interference by the defendants with regard to the
possession of the plaintiff. It is submitted that now the
Trial Court has posted the matter for recording the
evidence and in view of the pendency of this petition, the
proceedings before the Trial Court are not taken up. It is
further submitted that this Court, vide an interim order,
has ordered the parties to maintain status quo and the
said status quo shall be continued till the disposal of the
suit. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition by directing
the Trial Court to dispose of the suit at the earliest.
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. I have given my anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both the
sides.
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
HC-KAR
5. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.392/2020
against the defendants for the relief of permanent
injunction. The assertion in the plaint is that the mother-
in-law of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property
vide registered sale deed dated 15.07.1974 from the
father of the defendant No.1. Thereafter, the name of the
mother-in-law of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue
records. It is averred that after the death of her mother-
in-law, the plaintiff got the revenue records changed in her
name. In the year 2020, the defendants tried to
dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property
which compelled her to file a suit for permanent injunction
and along with the suit, she filed an application under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short, 'the CPC'). The records indicate that the
Trial Court passed an order dated 24.11.2020 on I.A.No.1
by directing the defendants not to interfere with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff within
the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule. The
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
HC-KAR
said order was assailed by the defendants in
M.A.No.25/2020 before the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur.
The Appellate Court reversed the said order solely on the
ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish the alleged
interference by the defendants. The Appellate Court
recorded the finding in favour of the defendants with
regard to the prima facie case.
6. Be that as it may, it is to be noticed that this
Court, vide order dated 14.02.2022 has considered the
submissions and directed the parties to maintain status
quo and the said order is in force till today. It is brought
to the notice of the Court that now the suit is at the stage
of recording the evidence. In my considered view, without
expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the
impugned order, the interest of justice would be met if the
status quo as ordered by this Court is continued till the
disposal of the suit.
NC: 2026:KHC:14900
HC-KAR
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ
petition is allowed. The parties to maintain status quo till
the disposal of the suit.
It is made clear that the Trial Court, while disposing
of the suit shall not be influenced by any of the findings
recorded either by the Trial Court or by this Court.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
