Smt Rathnamma Vs Sri Muniyappa

SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O VASANTAPPA, W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO, 23, ULLUREPET (JAWGUPETE), SIDLAGHATTA TOWN, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, PIN-562 105. REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER S.R.MURALI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O VASANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT AT Y.HUNESENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562 105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. BHUVAN.K.P., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07/01/2023 PASSED ON IA NO.2 FILED U/O 39

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45785 WP No. 25426 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.69/22 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AND THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2025 PASSED IN MA NO.5/2023 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHICKBALLAPURA (SITTING AT CHINTAMANI) VIDE ANNEXURE-G BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge two orders, one dated 07.01.2023 in O.S.No.69/2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge, and JMFC, Sidlaghatta on I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and the other order dated 05.08.2025 in MA.No.5/2023 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chickballapura [hereinafter after referred as the “Impugned Orders”].

¶26

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits

¶27

that he claims title over the land and that originally the

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45785 WP No. 25426 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

land was under cultivation of his joint family which comprised of him, his brother, mother and his father. He further submits that he filed a suit against the defendant seeking reliefs. However, his application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial Court by the order dated 07.01.2023. An appeal filed against the order dated 07.01.2023 was also dismissed by the Appellate Court on 05.08.2025.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has right in the property and thus the order of granting status-quo during the pendency of the proceedings was imperative.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant on other hand submits that the suit of the petitioner is not maintainable. He submits that the defendant has purchased the property by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.01.1997 for lawful consideration. However, now the petitioner has filed a suit seeking a declaration qua title and injunction against the defendant.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:45785 WP No. 25426 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The record reflects that the suit has been filed by the petitioner who is also the plaintiff before the Trial Court seeking the following reliefs.

¶37

(i) “Declare the title of the plaintiff over the suit land,

¶38

(ii) For decree of consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendant or any body his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff in any manner with costs of this suit and to grant such other reliefs this hon’ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶39

The respondent has filed his written statement clearly setting out that the plaintiff has himself sold the suit property to the defendant by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 13.01.1997 for adequate consideration. It further sets out that since the revenue entries continued to be in the name of the plaintiff, now he seeks to

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:45785 WP No. 25426 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

challenge the sale. Paragraph 16 of the written statement

¶44

in this regard is extracted below:

¶45

”It is humbly submitted that-the Plaintiff to meet her family, legal necessities and other family problems has sold the plaint schedule Property in favour of defendant herein through an absolute registered sale deed dated: 13.01.1997 and the said document duly registered before office of Sub Registrar, Sidlaghattta for lawful consideration. Since the date of sale in favour of defendant herein, the defendant has been in Possession and Enjoyment with respect to suit Property by cultivating and growing crops thereof. The boundaries to plaint schedule Property as contents of registered sale deed dated: 13.01.1997 is

¶46

East-by : Land of Muniyappa West-by : Land belongs to Plaintiff North by : Land of Narayanappa

¶47

South by : Road

¶48

Still the revenue entries pertaining to suit Property continued in the name of Plaintiff

¶49

and defendant also made representation before revenue authorities to get mutation in his favour basing on sale in his favour and the same is under process before revenue authorities. Further the

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45785 WP No. 25426 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

survey authorities have also conducted survey with respect to plaint schedule Property and assigned new sy.number. The Plaintiff willfully and intentionally has furnished wrong boundaries with an obliquie intention to grab the Property legally acquired by defendant herein through illegal methods.”

¶53

Emphasis supplied

¶54

The learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court

¶55

after examining the documents as well as the fact that it is the plaintiff herself who seeks to challenge the sale made by her by virtue of a registered instrument, found that the suit of the plaintiff is also barred by limitation as well as by suppression of vital facts.

¶56

7.1. The learned Trial Court also gave a finding that the

¶57

relationship between the parties is not in dispute. However, when a registered document is available in favour of the defendant, the burden of proof to establish the fabrication of such document is on the plaintiff. It is in these circumstances, that the Trial Court directed that a prima facie case for injunction is not made out.

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:45785 WP No. 25426 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

8. Undisputedly, the plaint does not seek a cancellation

¶62

of the sale deed. It seeks a declaration of the title over the suit land and injunction from interference in its enjoyment as well. Given the pleadings of the parties and the undisputed facts, this Court agrees with the learned Trial Court that the grant of interim relief is not warranted.

¶63

This Court thus does not find any ground to interfere with the Impugned Order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶64

It is however clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. The contentions of both parties are left open to be agitated before the learned Trial Court, in accordance with law.

¶65

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶66

TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Smt Rathnamma v. Sri Muniyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rathnamma v. Sri Muniyappa

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

M/S Maini Scaffolds System Vs M/S Arattukulam Infrastructure Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Shivanna Vs Sri S Venkateshwara Raju

Saraswathi H Suthar Vs Kammanahalli St. Marys Educational Society