Smt M Roopavathi v. Sri B v Venkatesh

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2025WP/14405/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, WP No.14405/2021 (GM-CPC), decided 05.08.2025, single judge Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao; Article 227 Constitution of India; temporary injunction Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC rejected in O.S.No.537/2021 and confirmed in M.A.No.52/2021; petitioner claimed lawful possession via sale deeds of 1997 and 2017; respondent asserted physical possession; status quo order dated 19.08.2021 continued till disposal of suit; petition disposed without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions that both parties maintain status quo till disposal of O.S.No.537/2021 and co-operate for expeditious disposal; the merits of the temporary-injunction application were left undecided. ¶¶51

Smt M Roopavathi Vs Sri B v Venkatesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30294 WP No. 14405 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 14405 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. M. ROOPAVATHI, W/O T. HARISHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.83, 11^TH CROSS, JNANA GANGA NAGARA, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, MALLATHAHALLI, JNANABHARATHI, BENGALURU - 560056

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI B.V. VENKATESH S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.460, 7^TH CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560096

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SARITHA A.L., ADVOCATE SRI. S. SHANKARACHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 16.07.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN M.A.NO.52/2021 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 3^RD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.537/2021 ON I.A.NO-I VIDE ANNX-K AND ETC.,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:30294 WP No. 14405 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed praying to quash the impugned order dated 16.07.2021, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (‘the Appellate Court’ for short) passed in M.A.No.52/2021 vide Annexure-K and to quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2021 passed by III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru passed in O.S.No.537/2021 on I.A.No.I vide Annexure-G.

¶24

2 The petitioner herein is the appellant in M.A.No.52/2021 and plaintiff in O.S.No.537/2021 and the respondent herein is the respondent in M.A.No.52/2021 and defendant in O.S.No.537/2021.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent and perused the records.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30294 WP No. 14405 of 2021

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted O.S.No.537/2021 before the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bengaluru Rural District, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent and his agents, legal heirs, and any persons claiming under him from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the petitioner that Site No.31, V.P. Khatha No.525, measuring East to West 67½ feet and North to South 70 feet, situated at Karivobanahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, was originally owned by Smt. Venkatamma W/o Late Maistry Venkataswamy and Sri Venkatesh S/o Late Maistry Venkataswamy, who were the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, sold the said site to one Sri Sathyanarayana Guptha S/o Late Ram Swaroop Guptha through a registered sale deed dated 12.05.1997.

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30294 WP No. 14405 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Upon the demise of Sri Sathyanarayana Guptha on

¶32

23.01.2004, his wife Smt. Seetha Devi Guptha and his children inherited the property and continued in lawful possession and the khata was made in the name of Smt.Seetha Devi Guptha, who regularly paid taxes in respect of the said property. Thereafter, through a registered sale deed dated 06.04.2017, the said Smt. Seetha Devi Guptha and her children sold the Eastern portion of Site No.31, measuring East to West 23 feet and North to South 70 feet, in all measuring 1610 sq.ft., along with an A.C. sheet house and civic amenities, in favour of the petitioner through a registered sale deed. Pursuant to which, Khata was transferred in the petitioner’s name and he was in possession of the property.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent, being a person with political background, without any lawful claim, illegally trespassed into the suit schedule property, demolished the existing shed constructed by the petitioner’s vendor and attempted to

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30294 WP No. 14405 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

forcibly occupy the premises. Petitioner filed the present suit along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s suit schedule property.

¶37

The respondent filed a written statement and contested the suit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Trial Court, without appreciating the documents produced, rejected the application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, which is confirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶38

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction and had produced substantial documentary evidence to establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the as on the date of filing

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30294 WP No. 14405 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

O.S.No.537/2021 before the III Additional Civil Judge (Rural), Bengaluru and M.A.No.52/2021 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge (Rural), Bengaluru, the petitioner was not in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, respondent has produced several documentary evidence for proving his physical possession.

¶43

This Court by Order by order dated 19.08.2021, directed the parties to maintain status quo and not to put up any construction therein. The said status quo order has been in operation till today. In view the status quo order, the Trial Court could not proceed with the matter.

¶44

In an injunction suit, lawful possession and interference must be established. Therefore, at this stage, without dwelling upon the merits of the case, it is directed that both the parties shall maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.537/2021 on the file of

¶45

the III Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:30294 WP No. 14405 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Bengaluru. It is further directed that both the parties

¶50

shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶51