The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an order granting a mandatory injunction to restore business premises and scheduled businesses to the plaintiffs. The Court upheld the findings that the plaintiffs were the exclusive owners of the businesses operated by the deceased and his wife separately. (Paras 30, 38, 67)
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P No.5743/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.5743 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 124
(BY SHRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
W.P No.5743/2017
2
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.676/A 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD NEAR BRIGADE APARTMENT ALANAHALLY LAYOUT MYSORE CITY-570 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.15.11.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT T.NARASIPURA ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.120/2016 CERTIFIED COPY VIDE ANNEX-P AND THE ORDER DTD.6.1.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT T.NARASIPURA IN M.A.NO.7/2016 VIDE ANNEX-S.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.07.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are defendants No.2 and 3 in
O.S. No.120/2016 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, T. Narsipura (formerly O.S. No. 26/2016).
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and directed the
defendants to restore Schedule - A and B businesses along
with the premises to the plaintiffs. Defendants appeal
W.P No.5743/2017
3
challenging the said order has been dismissed with costs. Hence, this writ petition.
4
She was also running a shop in the name and style 'Ganesh Xerox' in Schedule-B premises. She has also borrowed
W.P No.5743/2017
5
money from SBM. She is the exclusive owner of the business.
6
relationship between the parties. According to them, the businesses belonged to the family and not exclusively to late Nagendraswamy.
W.P No.5743/2017
7
prior to 2015. Learned Trial Judge has also recorded that to substantiate their contention that the business belonged to the joint family, defendants have not produced any material. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge has allowed I.A. No.2.
8
single piece of paper to substantiate their contentions. On the contrary, second defendant has stated in his complaint
to the Police that late Nagendraswamy was living separately and running his business in the name of 'Ganesh Xerox'.
accordingly, it is dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
SPS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order granting a mandatory injunction in favor of plaintiffs regarding inherited business premises.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding separate ownership and operation of the businesses by the plaintiffs require interference by the High Court.
LOKESH S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
M. GIRISH
SMT. G.S. SUDHA
MISS. POOJA T.N
SHAILESH HEMANTH
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
