Dismissed¶66

Sri Somashekhar v. Smt Yashodha v

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2025WP/23318/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, 2025, WP No. 23318 of 2025 (GM-CPC), NC: 2025:KHC:41611 — Article 227 certiorari against confirmation of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC; agreement-of-sale possessor versus subsequent registered purchasers (registered sale deed dated 14.03.2024); specific performance suit O.S.No.154/2012 dismissed 20.02.2024 with Regular Appeal R.A.No.73/2024 pending; no illegality or perversity; no interference; writ dismissed without expressing opinion on merits; Hassan; Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court and the first appellate Court are justified in granting the temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in favour of the plaintiffs. ¶64

Sri Somashekhar Vs Smt Yashodha v — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in favour of the plaintiffs and confirmed by the first appellate Court calls for interference in this writ petition under Article 227. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

This Court does not want to delve into the merits of the matter as it may affect the rights of the defendant in the trial.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court and the first appellate Court are justified in granting the temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶64

Key takeaways

No illegality or perversity is found in the order passed so as to warrant interference by this Court.ratio¶64
No good grounds are made out to interfere in the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court.ratio¶64
The writ petition is dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), order dated 16.10.2025. Petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.337/2024, a suit by the respondents/plaintiffs for permanent injunction, challenged the temporary injunction granted in their favour under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hassan) in M.A.No.4/2025 by order dated 02.07.2025. Defendant claimed possession under an agreement of sale dated 07.02.2007 executed by Sri. G.C. Shivanna and Smt. Jayamma and family; his suit for specific performance (O.S.No.154/2012) was dismissed on 20.02.2024 and Regular Appeal R.A.No.73/2024 thereon is pending; plaintiffs purchased the property from Sri. G.C. Shivanna by registered sale deed dated 14.03.2024. Held: the trial Court and the first appellate Court were justified in granting the temporary injunction; no illegality or perversity was found; the Court declined to delve into the merits lest the defendant's rights at trial be affected and found no good grounds to interfere. Petition dismissed, with an express clarification that no opinion was expressed on the merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 23318 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SOMASHEKHAR S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK- 562 132.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIRAMA.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

SMT YASHODHA V

¶12

W/O MOHAN KUMAR DB, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAYAPATNA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK- 562 132.

¶13

SMT SUSHMA

¶14

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

W/O K V KARIGOWDA,

¶17

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶18

R/AT LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, VISHWESHWARA EXTENSION, SALAGAME ROAD, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN TALUK- 562 132.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. H.J.ANANDA, ADVOCATE C/R1)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE DATED 02.07.2025 PASSED IN M.A. NO.4/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT HASSAN., VIDE ANNEXURE-A., AND ETC.

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶28

counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 undertakes to file vakalath for respondent No.2 who is none than the plaintiff No.2.

¶29

The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.337/2024 which is filed by the

¶30

respondents/plaintiffs. Parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant.

¶31

Plaintiffs filed a suit for decree of permanent

¶32

injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any persons claiming through them, from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Along with the claim an application came to be filed under order 39 Rule

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

1 and 2 of CPC in IA.No.2 seeking temporary injunction.

¶37

The trial Court initially granted an Ad interim ex parte temporary injunction and after appearance of the defendant and on filing the objections and on hearing the rival contentions of both parties the application came to be allowed.

¶38

Aggrieved by the said order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs, defendant preferred an appeal in MA.No.4/2025 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hassan. Upon hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

¶39

The defendant is before this court in this writ petition challenging the said order passed by the appellate Court confirming the order of the trial Court upholding the orders on Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶44

the defendant that the petitioner/defendant had entered into an agreement of sale and he had filed the suit in O.S.No.154/2012 before the VII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC against his vendor Smt.Jayamma and her family members, seeking relief of specific performance of the contract. The said suit, however, came to be dismissed on 20.02.2024. After the dismissal of the said suit, Sri.G.C.Shivanna sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2024 thereby they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶45

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that though the plaintiffs are not having any right over the suit schedule property, plaintiffs are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant in the suit schedule property as the defendant was put in possession of the suit

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

schedule property, after the agreement of sale entered into in his favour.

¶49

It is also the contention of the learned counsel

¶50

for the petitioner/defendant that the defendant has preferred Regular Appeal in RA.No.73/2024 against the dismissal of the suit for specific performance which is still pending adjudication and therefore the question of the plaintiffs claiming right over the suit schedule property and an order of injunction granted in their favour is not correct. It is illegal and arbitrary and the same requires to be set aside as the trial Court and the first appellate Court has not looked into these aspects of the matter that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of agreement of sale. Therefore he seeks to set aside the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶51

Per contra, it is the case of the plaintiffs that originally the suit schedule property belonged to one

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Sri.Kalegowda and the said Kalegowda sold the suit schedule property to one Sri.S.S. Siddegowda by way of registered sale deed dated 11.09.1974. Thereafter, since Sri.S.S.Siddegowda died and the khata of the suit schedule property was changed in the name of his wife Smt. Jayamma. Thereafter, Smt. Jayamma and her family sold the suit schedule property to one Sri.G.C. Shivanna on 01.10.2011 through the registered sale deed and thereafter the khata has been changed accordingly to the said Sri.G.C. Shivanna.

¶55

It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the said Sri.G.C. Shivanna sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs by way of registered sale deed on 14.03.2024. Pursuant to that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property so also the Katha has been changed in the name of the plaintiffs and they are enjoying the property as absolute owners and in peaceful possession of the same. Therefore, the trial Court has considered all

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

these aspects and accordingly having found that there is no substance and truth in the statement made by the defendant granted an temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs upon hearing and thereafter upon the defendant filing the appeal, the same has been confirmed by the first appellate Court which is absolutely correct and the same does not call for interference.

¶60

Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for the defendant and on perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, it is seen that the facts are not disputed by either of the parties with regard to the ownership by one Sri.Kale gowda and the sale made by him thereafter to subsequent purchasers. So also the agreement of sale in favour of the defendant by one Sri.G.C.Shivanna and Smt.Jayamma and family dated 07.02.2007

¶61

It is also a fact that the specific performance suit came to be dismissed. Therefore, the trial Court and

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41611 WP No. 23318 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

the first appellate Court are justified in granting the temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in favour of the plaintiffs. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed or interference by this Court. This Court does not want to delve into the merits of the matter as it may affect the rights of the defendant in the trial. No good grounds are made out to interfere in the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The petition is dismissed.

¶67

It is made clear that this Court has not

¶68

expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶69

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶70

RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 02.07.2025 in M.A. No.4/2025 dismissing the defendant's appeal and confirming the trial Court's order granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in favour of the plaintiffs (Annexure-A).¶21
Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hassan · 02.07.2025
Prior proceeding
Respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.337/2024 against the petitioner/defendant for a decree of permanent injunction restraining interference with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.¶31
Prior proceeding
Along with the suit, plaintiffs filed IA.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction.¶36
Prior proceeding
Trial Court initially granted ad interim ex parte temporary injunction and, after appearance of the defendant, filing of objections and hearing both sides, allowed the application.¶37
Prior proceeding
Defendant appealed in M.A.No.4/2025 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Hassan; the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court's temporary injunction order.¶38
Prior proceeding
Defendant had earlier filed O.S.No.154/2012 before the VII Additional Civil Judge and JMFC against his vendor Smt. Jayamma and her family members seeking specific performance of the contract.¶44
Prior proceeding
The specific performance suit O.S.No.154/2012 came to be dismissed on 20.02.2024.¶44
Prior proceeding
After the dismissal, Sri. G.C. Shivanna sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2024.¶44
Prior proceeding
Defendant preferred Regular Appeal R.A.No.73/2024 against the dismissal of the specific performance suit, which is still pending adjudication.¶50
Prior proceeding
Title chain per plaintiffs: Kalegowda sold the property to Sri. S.S. Siddegowda by registered sale deed dated 11.09.1974; khata changed to his wife Smt. Jayamma, who with her family sold to Sri. G.C. Shivanna on 01.10.2011 through registered sale deed.¶54
Prior proceeding
Court noted as undisputed the agreement of sale dated 07.02.2007 in favour of the defendant by Sri. G.C. Shivanna and Smt. Jayamma and family.¶60

Sri Somashekhar v. Smt Yashodha v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Somashekhar v. Smt Yashodha v

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

Mr R T Ravichandir Vs Sri S Ziaualla

Sree Charan Souhardha Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Vs M/S R Arunachalam Property

Mr.Zabiulla Baig Vs M/S Ranka Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Sri.Harisha R Vs Sri.Yathish

B K Narayanaswamy Vs Smt B K Rajamma

Smt. Manju Vs Mr. T Srinivas