The High Court
Case Details
- 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) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka BETWEEN: SRI. K.S. SWAMY S/O KOLANDAI SWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT # 252, NEAR PS BANNERAGHATTA BENGALURU-560083. (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K.S. ADV.,) AND:
Legal Reasoning
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. (BY SRI. PATEEL G.S. ADV., FOR R1 & R2 V/O/DTD:12.01.2023 NOTICE IN R/O R3 IS D/W) …RESPONDENTS - 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22416 W.P. No.22062/2019 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22416 W.P. No.22062/2019 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
Decision
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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22416 W.P. No.22062/2019 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. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22416 W.P. No.22062/2019 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22416 W.P. No.22062/2019 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. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22416 W.P. No.22062/2019 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26