Dismissed¶55

Sri Bheemaiah v. Sri. Doddaramaiah

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2025WP/16679/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition dismissed; Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC; temporary injunction; status quo; clean hands; suppression of registered sale deed dated 29.09.1958; unregistered sale deed dated 23.01.1958; differing boundaries; M.A.No.25/2023 Prl. District & Sessions Judge Tumakuru; O.S.No.581/2022 Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM; Survey No.61/1 Kottihalli Kaval Village; GM-CPC; interim order set aside affirmed.

What did the court decide?

Having suppressed execution of the registered sale deed dated 29.09.1958 in favour of his father Rangaswamaiah, the plaintiff has not approached the trial Court with clean hands. ¶54

Sri Bheemaiah Vs Sri. Doddaramaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 in M.A.No.25 of 2023 (allowing the appeal and setting aside the interim status quo order dated 11.07.2023 on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.581 of 2022) suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶54

Court's answer

On comparison of the boundaries of the property purchased under the registered sale deed dated 29.09.1958 with those of the suit schedule property, the boundaries of the two properties were found to differ, and on that basis the appellate Court rightly allowed M.A.No.25 of 2023.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Having suppressed execution of the registered sale deed dated 29.09.1958 in favour of his father Rangaswamaiah, the plaintiff has not approached the trial Court with clean hands.

¶54

Key takeaways

In view of the plaintiff's suppression and want of clean hands, the appellate Court was fully justified in allowing M.A.No.25 of 2023 and setting aside the order dated 11.07.2023 passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.581 of 2022 by the trial Court.ratio¶54
There is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned; the Court therefore declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S Vishwajith Shetty, J.), by order dated 11.11.2025, dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in M.A.No.25/2023, whereby the appellate Court had set aside the trial Court's order dated 11.07.2023 on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.581/2022 directing maintenance of status quo in respect of Survey No.61 (new Survey No.61/1, 2 acres), Kottihalli Kaval Village, Tumakuru Taluk. The plaintiff claimed title under an unregistered sale deed dated 23.01.1958 allegedly covering 4 acres, while suppressing the registered sale deed dated 29.09.1958 executed by the defendants' grandfather Gangaiah in favour of the plaintiff's father Rangaswamaiah conveying 2 acres out of 4; the boundaries under the two documents differed. Holding that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands, that the appellate Court was fully justified in allowing the appeal, and that there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, the Court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it; pending applications were disposed of as not surviving.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45745 WP No. 16679 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 16679 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI BHEEMAIAH S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT DODDASARANGIPALYA VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 118.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI MANU SHANKAR S.S, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI DODDARAMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶12

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

¶13

SRI MARIYANNAM S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶14

SRI JAYANNA S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶15

SRI CHANDRAPPA, S/O ALTE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶16

SRI ASHWATHA S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶17

RESPONDENT 1 TO 5 ARE ALL R/AT DODDASRANGIPALYA GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45745 WP No. 16679 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 118.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI R.S. UMESH, ADV., FOR C/R-1 TO R-5)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-E IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMKURU IN M.A.NO. 25/2023 DTD. 07.06.2024 AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM IN O.S.NO. 581/2022 DTD. 11.07.2023 AT ANNXEXURE-C PASSED BY ON IA BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This writ petition under Article 227 of the

¶29

Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.06.2024 passed in M.A.No.25 of 2023 by Court of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶31

Suit in O.S.No.581 of 2022 is filed before the

¶32

Jurisdictional Civil Court at Tumakuru by the petitioner herein seeking the relief of declaration and permanent possession of the suit schedule property bearing Survey No.61 (new Survey No.61/1 measuring 2 acres situated at Situated at Kottihalli Kaval Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. In the said suit,

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45745 WP No. 16679 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

I.A.No.I was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC on

¶36

behalf of the plaintiff with a prayer to grant order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objections and the trial Court by the order dated 11.07.2023 allowed the application and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The said order passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.581 of 2002 was assailed by the defendants in M.A.No.25 of 2023 before the jurisdictional appellate Court and M.A.No.25 of 2023 was allowed on 07.06.2024 and the order passed on I.A.No.I in OS No.581 of 2022 dated 11.07.2023 was set aside and consequently the prayer made in the application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff having

¶38

reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, the trial Court having appreciated the rival contentions had rightly allowed I.A.No.I. The appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the said order. The entries in the revenue records

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:45745 WP No. 16679 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

of the suit schedule property would reflect the name of the grandfather and father of the plaintiff, in the possession column. He accordingly prays to allow the petition.

¶43

Per contra , learned counsel for contesting respondents has opposed the petition. He submits that grandfather of the defendants namely Gangaiah had executed a registered sale deed dated 29.09.1958 in favour of Rangaswamaiah, who is the father of the plaintiff and had sold 2 acres of land in Survey No.61 out of 4 acres which Gangaiah owned. The suit schedule property is the remaining 2 acres of land which was retained by Gangaiah. The boundaries found in the sale deed dated 29.09.1958 and the boundaries of the suit schedule property are totally different. The appellate Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly allowed M.A.No.25 of 2023. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶44

It is the case of the plaintiff that his grandfather Bheemaiah had purchased 4 acres of land from the grandfather of the defendants under an unregistered sale deed dated 23.01.1958 and on the strength of the said document, the

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45745 WP No. 16679 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

grandfather of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of

¶48

the entire extent of land which was subject matter of the unregistered sale deed dated 23.01.1958. After his death, his son Rangaswamaiah and subsequently the plaintiff had succeeded to the said property and alleging interference by the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property, the petitioner had approached the trial Court. The defendants have produced registered sale deed dated 29.09.1958 executed by their grandfather Gangaiah in favour of Rangaswamaiah, father of the plaintiff wherein, 2 acres of land in Survey No.61 was sold out of the 4 acres of land, which he owned. The appellate Court has compared the boundaries of the property purchased under registered sale deed dated 29.09.1958 by Rangaswamaiah from the grandfather of the defendants and the boundaries of the suit schedule property and having found that the boundaries of the two properties differ has rightly allowed M.A.No.25 of 2023. The plaintiff has suppressed execution of the aforesaid registered sale deed dated 29.09.1958 in favour of his father Rangaswamaiah by the grandfather of the defendants and on the other hand title over

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:45745 WP No. 16679 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the suit schedule property is sought to be claimed on the basis of an unregistered sale deed dated 23.01.1958.

¶53

From the aforesaid it appears that the plaintiff has

¶54

not approached the trial Court with clean hand. Under the circumstances, the appellate Court was fully justified in allowing M.A.No.25 of 2023 and setting aside the order dated 11.07.2023 passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.581 of 2022 by the trial court. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned and therefore, I decline to entertain this writ petition.

¶55

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶56

Pending applications do not survive for consideration and

¶57

accordingly the same are disposed of.

¶58

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶59

NMS

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23