H. S. Nanjappaswamy Vs Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

H. S. Nanjappaswamy Vs Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the writ petition was dismissed and all I.As. in the writ petition were ordered closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners/plaintiffs are entitled to interim injunction in O.S.No.279/2016 (suit for declaration and permanent injunction) when their earlier injunction suit in respect of the very same property and against the very same defendants (O.S.No.218/2006, confirmed in RA.No.89/2008) stands dismissed and has attained finality. +1 more

Court's answer

The Appellate Court had rightly considered that the injunction suit is dismissed and the appeal has attained finality, and rightly held that the petitioners are not entitled for injunction.

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court granted interim injunction without considering that the earlier injunction suit stood dismissed and that the I.A. filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the declaration suit was along similar lines.

Key takeaways

This Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed in M.A.No.8/2019.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (NC: 2025:KHC:10385), single judge — Lalitha Kanneganti J.; W.P. No. 36683 of 2019 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; decided 12.03.2025. Petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.No.279/2016 (Civil Judge & JMFC, H.D. Kote) — a comprehensive suit for declaration and permanent injunction over 6 acres 4 guntas — sought quashing of the order dated 01.06.2019 in M.A.No.8/2019 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, H.D. Kote) whereby the defendant's appeal was allowed, the trial Court's interim injunction dated 20.02.2019 was reversed, and the application for interim injunction was dismissed. The Appellate Court had relied on (i) the dismissal, confirmed in RA.No.89/2008, of the plaintiffs' earlier suit O.S.No.218/2006 for permanent injunction over the very same property against the very same defendants (dismissed for non-proof of boundaries), and (ii) the surveyor's report, mahazar, sketch and a gramapanchayath certificate pointing to 20 guntas of Government kharab land towards the southern side of Sy.No.90, between Taraka channel and Sy.No.90, used by the villagers of Ankanathapura for cremation. Held: the order in the injunction suit has attained finality; the I.A. in the declaration suit is along similar lines; the trial Court granted injunction without considering this; the Appellate Court rightly held the petitioners not entitled to injunction; this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order in M.A.No.8/2019. Writ petition dismissed; all I.As. closed. A Co-ordinate Bench's status quo order dated 19.09.2019 had subsisted pending disposal.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10385 WP No. 36683 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 36683 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

H. S. NANJAPPASWAMY S/O. LATE SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. HIREHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114

H. S. MALLAPPA @ CHANDRU S/O. LATE SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. HIREHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

RAJANNA S/O. KUSAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALKUK-571 114, MYSURU DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.YADHUNANDAN N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10385 WP No. 36683 of 2019

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU-570 001

TAHASILDAR H.D. KOTE, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114

REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA CIRCLE, TALUKA OFFICE, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114

VENKATASWAMY S/O. THAMMAIAHNAIKA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE ATLUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114

KALINGA NAIK S/O. KALA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE ATLUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.AKASH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6 SRI.G.C.YOGISH, AGA FOR R1- R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2019 PASSED IN MA NO.8/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL AND GRANT INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AS PRAYED FOR IN IA NO.2 (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS IA NO.1 IN THE ORDER OF LOWER APPELLATE COURT) IN O.S.NO.279/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, H.D.KOTE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10385 WP No. 36683 of 2019

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.8/2019 dated 01.06.2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, H.D.Kote., the petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court.

The plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.279/2016 seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property measuring 6 acres 4 guntas of land. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial Court by order dated 20.02.2019 had granted interim injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant had filed M.A.No.8/2019 and that appeal came to be allowed by order dated 01.06.2019 which is impugned before this Court.

While allowing M.A.No.8/2019, the trial Court had observed that earlier, in respect of the very same property, the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.218/2006 for the relief of permanent injunction and the said suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs had not proved boundaries of the suit schedule property and the said judgment was confirmed in RA.No.89/2008. Further, the Court also observed that the copy

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10385 WP No. 36683 of 2019

of the report of the surveyor produced by the 5^th defendant reveals that the land which was sought for cremation of villagers is situated towards the southern side of Sy.No.19. Further, the copy of the mahazar produced by the defendants reveals that 20 guntas of allowable land is situated towards southern side of Sy.No.90 and boundary for the said 20 guntas of land is also shown as north by Sy.No.90 of Hirehally. Further, the copy of the sketch prepared by the surveyor reveals the fact of existence of 20 guntas of kharab land towards southern side of Sy.No.90 and it belongs to Taraka channel and the said land is claimed by the villagers of Ankanathapura and hadi people and sought for its grant. Even the document also discloses that towards the northern side of 20 guntas of land, the land of Sy.No.90 is situated. Further, a certificate is issued by the gramapanchayath of Hirehally village prima facie reveals that the Government kharab land measuring 20 guntas is situated towards southern side of Sy.No.90 of Hirehally and the said land which is situated in between Taraka channel and Sy.No.90 has been using for cremation by the villagers of Ankanathapura and the said 20 guntas does not belong to Sy.No.90. As such, the Appellate

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10385 WP No. 36683 of 2019

Court had reversed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the application filed for interim injunction. Against that, the present writ petition is filed. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted status quo on 19.09.2019 and the said interim order has been extended from time to time.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that they have been enjoying the status quo order right from the year 2019. As such, the same may be made absolute and a direction may be granted to the trial Court to proceed with the matter. He submits that the judgment passed in the injunction suit has no bearing in the present suit which is a comprehensive suit for declaration. He submits the villagers under the guise of the said kharab land are interfering with his land which made him to file the present suit. It is submitted that in his 6 acres 4 guntas of land, there is no kharab land and the kharab land is adjacent to the adjoining land of the petitioners and under the guise of the said kharab land, they are interfering with his land.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants submits that, in view of the status quo order

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10385 WP No. 36683 of 2019

granted by this court, the entire villagers are put to lot of hardship. It is submitted that they have been using the land for the cremation purpose. It is submitted that the Appellate Court had rightly set aside the order of the trial Court when the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs in respect of the very same land and against the very same defendants has been dismissed and it has attained finality and the Appellate Court had confirmed the order of the trial Court. He submits that continuing the status quo order will cause lot of prejudice to the defendants and the petitioners are not entitled for such relief from this Court.

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that in respect of the very same property and against the very same defendants, the petitioners have filed suit for injunction which came to be dismissed and against that, RA.No.89/2008 was filed and the said RA was also dismissed. Hence, the order passed in the injunction suit has attained finality. The trial Court had also observed that in the injunction suit the boundaries of the property are not clear. Now, in the suit for declaration, the I.A. that is filed by the

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10385 WP No. 36683 of 2019

petitioners/plaintiffs is also in the similar lines. The trial Court without considering the said fact had granted injunction.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Appellate Court had rightly considered that the injunction suit is dismissed and the appeal has attained finality and rightly held that the petitioners are not entitled for injunction. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed in M.A.No.8/2019. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

ORDER

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MEG

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2