Dismissed¶43

Sampath Kumar v. Haleshappa

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2025WP/11976/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (GM-CPC) dismissed; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; refusal to interfere with concurrent findings absent per se illegality or perversity; temporary injunction refused where plaintiff claims under Gift Deed from Nanjundappa over portion of Sy. No.13/1P already held not his self-acquired property in OS No.104/2007, confirmed in RA No.39/2017; no injunction against co-owners; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC; OS No.316/2022; MA No.32/2023; Shikaripura courts; Sampath Kumar v. Haleshappa and others.

What did the court decide?

The Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders (rejection of temporary injunction and dismissal of appeal) that warrants interference; the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court stand. ¶43

Sampath Kumar Vs Haleshappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53409 WP No. 11976 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 11976 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SAMPATH KUMAR S/O GURURAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ARGICULTURIST R/O ITTIGEHALLI VILLAGE HOSURU HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA M.V, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

HALESHAPPA S/O KADAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O ITTEGE HALLI HOSUR HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶13

SHUBHASH CHANDRA S/O KADAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS PWD CONTRACTOR R/O VIDYA NAGARA 2ND CROSS SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶14

JAYADEVAPPA S/O KADAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YERAS R/O BHAIRAVAESHWARA NILAYA, RAMAKRISHNA SCHOOL NEARBY BASAVESHWARA

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:53409 WP No. 11976 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

DRIVING SCHOOL GOPALA EXTENSION SHIMOGA TOWN AND DIST.

¶19

4. MANJAPPA

¶20

S/O KADAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O GAMA VILLAGE ANJANAPURA HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI AKASH V.T, ADV., FOR C/R-1)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE COSNTITUTION PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN OS NO. 316/22 PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SHIKARIPURA INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 05.09.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under

¶28

Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to setaside the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in OS No.316/2022 by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura and the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in MA No.32/2023 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the parities.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:53409 WP No. 11976 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Petitioner herein has filed OS No.316/2022 before the jurisdictional Civil Court, Shikaripura, seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, IA No.1 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an order of temporary injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy. No.13/1P, situated at Ittigehalli Village, Hosur Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order dated 05.09.2023 had rejected IA No.1 in OS No.316/2022. The same was unsuccessfully challenged by the plaintiff before the Appellate Court in MA No.32/2023, which was also dismissed on 28.02.2024. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶34

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that OS No.104/2007 was filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing Sy. No.13/1P totally measuring 5 acres 5 guntas. In the said suit, a contention was raised on

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:53409 WP No. 11976 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

behalf of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1, namely, Nanjundappa. The said suit was dismissed and the Trial Court has recorded a finding in the said suit that plaintiffs in OS No.104/2007 had failed to prove that the property bearing Sy. No.13/1P is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 - Nanjundappa. It was also observed that Nanjundappa had purchased the said property during the existence of joint family. The judgment and decree passed in OS No.104/2007 has been confirmed in RA No.39/2017.

¶39

The present suit is filed by the petitioner contending that Nanjundappa has executed a Gift Deed in respect of the suit schedule property which is a portion of the property which was subject matter of OS No.104/2007. The Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have recorded a finding in OS No.104/2007 that Nanjundappa was not the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy. No.13/1P out of which, a portion of the property is said to have been gifted to the petitioner. Therefore, both the Courts have refused to grant an order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner on the ground that no injunction can

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53409 WP No. 11976 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

be granted against the co-owners of the property, who are the defendants in the present suit. The concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court have been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. I do

¶43

not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned, which needs interference by this Court. Unless this Court finds that the order impugned are per se illegal and perverse, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. According, the petition is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sampath Kumar v. Haleshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampath Kumar v. Haleshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C K Shilpashree Vs Yashowdamma

Smt.Haneefabi Vs Mohammed Yousuff

M/S Casablanca Estate Vs Mohammed Mukarram @ M S Mukarram

M/S Anupama Wine Distributors Vs M/S Tilak Nagar Industries Limited

Mr Sanjay T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Y. Ganesh Vs Smt. Kiran C. Narang