Sri Jayarama Vs Sri Arunkumar H R

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXUREE THAT THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT KR PETE O.S NO.67/2018 AND ORDER DATED. 17.07.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KR PETE IN M.A. NO.8/2024 FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

This petition is filed by defendant No.6 questioning the orders passed on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, which came to be allowed by the trial court in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff and on challenge made by the petitioner before the appellate

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45692 WP No. 25454 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

court in M.A.No.8/2024, the same came to be dismissed, affirming the order of the trial Court. Hence petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the concurrent findings of granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

¶46

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The other respondents are co-defendants along with the petitioner. Hence they may not be aggrieved by the orders passed, hence notice to them is dispensed.

¶47

The parties to the proceedings shall be referred

¶48

to as per their rank before the trial court.

¶49

The plaintiff filed suit for injunction against the defendants in O.S.No.67/2018. Along with the plaint, an application came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till disposal of

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:45692 WP No. 25454 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the suit. It is the contention of the plaintiff that suit schedule property bearing Survey No.214, measuring 3 acres 7 guntas situated at Ganjigere Village, Bukanakere Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya District, originally belonging

¶54

to one Sri Neelegowda and was purchased by Sri Singregowda, S/o Madegowda, in the year 1919. Thereafter, on the demise of said Singregowda, said property documents were mutated in the names of his wife, Smt.Thimmamma in the year 1965. Thereafter, said Smt.Thimmamma sold the suit property to one Sri. Halegowda and subsequently after the death of Halegowda documents were mutated in the name of his wife Smt.Jayamma and the said Jayamma and her children sold the suit property to the plaintiff through a registered sale deed on 29.01.2016. Therefore, by virtue of this registered sale deed, plaintiff becomes the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants who have no

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45692 WP No. 25454 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

manner of right, title or interest are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit and an application for temporary injunction.

¶58

On appearance of the defendants, objections were filed and sought to dismiss the application filed by the plaintiff.

¶59

Upon hearing the counsels appearing for both parties, the trial court allowed the application. The defendants challenged the said order before the appellate court in M.A No.8/2024. Upon notice to the plaintiff, the said application was once again re-heard and upon several contentions raised by both the parties, the appellate court considered many grounds urged before the appeal court and being not satisfied with the contentions taken up by

¶60

the appellants therein i.e., the defendants, did not agree with the defendants to set aside the order and dismissed

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45692 WP No. 25454 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial court. The same is questioned before this Court by defendant No.6 alone by making the other defendants as parties to the proceedings as respondents.

¶64

It is the vehement contention of learned

¶65

counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.6 that both the courts have not considered the contentions putforth by the defendants before the trial court and the appellate court and has ignored the proceedings before the revenue authorities and the fact that property vested with the ancestors of the defendants and has erred in passing an interim order in favour of the plaintiff based on the sale deed of one Halegowda. It is the contention of the learned counsel for defendant No.6. that the property in question is situated within the limits of Inam Village i.e. Ganjigere Village and Sri Neelegowda had applied for grant of occupancy rights before the Special Deputy Commissioner

¶66

for abolition of Inams. Sri Neelegowda, who is the grandfather of defendant Nos.1 to 5 was granted the land

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:45692 WP No. 25454 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

as per the Rules contemplated under the Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and an endorsement was issued to that effect. In favour of Sri Neelegowda in the year 1961. Likewise, Smt.Thimmamma, W/o Singregowda applied for occupancy right to the Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams with respect to Sy.No.183, 117/2 and 214 respectively, which was considered. But the occupancy rights was refused in favour of Smt. Thimmamma in respect of Sy.No.214 to an extent of 3 acres 18 guntas of land and the authorities directed Neelegowda to approach the Tahasildar, K.R.Pet, for change of entries in the revenue records into his name in respect of property bearing Sy.No.214 to an extent of 3 acres 18 guntas.

¶71

8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the

¶72

defendant No.6 that Smt.Thimmamma, W/o Singregowda, had no right to execute the documents in favour of Halegowa and after his demise the legal heirs i.e. Smt. Jayamma, who sold the property in favour of the plaintiff did not have any right, title or interest to sell the property.

¶73

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45692 WP No. 25454 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Therefore, the sale deed if any executed in favour of the plaintiff is illegal/void and the vendor did not have the right to sell the same. Therefore, the entries made in favour of Halegowda does not carry any legal right and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶76

It is the contention of learned counsel for defendant No.6 that despite placing all these materials before the trial court and the first appellate court, the same has been ignored and not taken into consideration, so also the proceedings before the revenue authorities and the remand of the matter to the revenue authorities for reconsideration by the appellate authority. Under the circumstances, he seeks that interim order granted in favour of the plaintiff by both the courts is liable to be set aside.

¶77

Having heard learned counsel for both parties, the fact remains that the suit is filed for the relief of

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:45692 WP No. 25454 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

permanent injunction in which an application came to be

¶82

filed by the plaintiff for the relief of temporary injunction.

¶83

What is required to be seen while granting an order of temporary injunction is whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction?; whether the balance of convenience still lies in his favour;? and whether hardship would be caused to the aggrieved party? On these three accounts, the trial court has appreciated materials placed on record, so also the appellate court. On consideration of the plaintiff's sale deed and that of the vendor and the RTC in the name of the plaintiff granted the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The contention with regard to defendant No.6 pertaining to the right, title and interest of the vendor of the plaintiff not being there to make such a sale deed is all a matter of trial to be decided in the course of trial. Therefore, this Court at this stage cannot venture into a mini trial to enquire into whether the vendor of the plaintiff did have a title or not. Admittedly, there is a

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:45692 WP No. 25454 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, so also the vendor of the plaintiff.

¶88

Under these circumstances, the trial court as well as the first appellate court, having considered all these aspects, have come to a right conclusion for grant of an ad-interim order of injunction. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the orders passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. Accordingly, I pass the following;

¶89

ORDER

¶90

The petition is dismissed.

¶91

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶92

KLY/CT: JL

Sri Jayarama v. Sri Arunkumar H R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jayarama v. Sri Arunkumar H R

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

Sri Bharath Jaganathan Vs Senthil

Sri Muniyappa Vs Sri Venkateshappa Alias Mariyappa

Miss. Ramola. U. S. Vs Sri. B. I. Hemanth Kumar

Sakamma Vs Nagesha

N C Venkatesh Vs J Shashirekha

Mr. Kiran. M Vs Vijayanagara Club