This is an oral order in a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a stay application in a civil suit regarding property ownership. The court held it was not fit for interference and dismissed the petition.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:30809 WP No. 1991 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 1991 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.S. BADRINATH, S/O. B.K. SRIDHARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT SREEDHARA COMPOUND, SJ ROAD, JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. NOW R/AT HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UMESH B. N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:30809 WP No. 1991 of 2018
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 41/A, HUDCO COLONY, MILITARY CAMP, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA - 577 301.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED;
V/O DATED 29.03.2023, NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.12.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI IN MA NO.23/2017 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
is contended that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property by way of a court auction. Thereafter, the Judgment Debtor illegally sold the property in favour of respondent No.1 herein. On the strength of the said sale deed, respondent No.1 though he does not get any valid
title over the suit schedule property, he is trying to put up construction on the said suit schedule property. On the
NC: 2024:KHC:30809 WP No. 1991 of 2018
said ground, the petitioner herein filed Original Suit No.155/2017 with a prayer to declare that the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.1 regarding the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiff and a mandatory injunction that respondent No.1 should remove the construction put up. He also preferred an interlocutory application to restrain respondent No.1 herein from further constructing on the suit schedule property.
owner of the suit schedule property and he has made out a prima-facie case in respect of the same and respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:30809 WP No. 1991 of 2018
No.1 should not be permitted to put up any construction
on the suit schedule property pending disposal of O.S.No.155/2017.
therein reveals that respondent No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property and for that reason he is
putting up the construction. That is the reason why petitioner has made a prayer for removal of the said construction by respondent No.1.
the original suit is whether the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property or the respondent No.1 herein.
NC: 2024:KHC:30809 WP No. 1991 of 2018
If the trial Court upon completion of the trial, comes to the conclusion that petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property, then in that event, respondent No.1 shall be required to remove the construction made thereon.
is not a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the first Appellate Court in M.A.No.23/2017.
Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
MCR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15 CT:SNN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court was justified in dismissing the petition challenging the dismissal of the interlocutory application.
Whether the matter was fit for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution before the trial court completed the suit.
Sri. B.S. Badrinath
Sri. Malleshappa
Smt. Sakamma
Smt. Shivamma
M.I. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
