Disposed¶62

B N Venkatesh v. Smt Kamalamma

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2025WP/42690/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; writ of certiorari; temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC; prima facie case; concurrent interlocutory orders not interfered with; status quo continued till disposal of suit; permanent injunction suit OS.No.83/2017 Mulbagal Kolar; registered Will dated 16.07.1997; self-acquired vs succession claim; revenue mutation MR No-H8/16-17 stayed in R.A.No.85/2017; M.A.No.1/2019 appeal affirmed; suit to be decided on merits uninfluenced by interim findings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; the interim order of statusquo granted on 08.11.2019 continued till the disposal of OS.No.83/2017 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal; no orders as to costs. ¶62

B N Venkatesh Vs Smt Kamalamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the temporary injunction granted in O.S.No.83/2017 by order dated 20.02.2019 and affirmed in M.A.No.1/2019 by order dated 30.07.2019 should be quashed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, or alternatively whether the status quo interim order of 08.11.2019 should continue till disposal of the suit.

¶28

Court's answer

This Court declined to interfere with the interlocutory orders: the trial Court, taking note of the contentions advanced and the documents on record, had concluded that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case and exercised its discretion in granting interim protection, which the Appellate Court affirmed.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

The suit must be adjudicated on its merits; the trial Court shall decide O.S.No.83/2017 without being influenced by the findings in its own order dated 20.02.2019 or by the Appellate Court's order dated 30.07.2019 in MA.No.1/2019.

¶55

Key takeaways

The defendants' contentions regarding the registered Will dated 16.07.1997, the self-acquired character of the suit schedule property and the RTC stayed in RA.No.85/2017 could not be examined in this proceeding, the matter being at the stage of trial.ratio¶51
The ends of justice would be met by continuing the interim status quo order dated 08.11.2019 until disposal of O.S.No.83/2017, and on that basis the writ petition was disposed of.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), W.P. No.42690/2019 (GM-CPC), decided 10.07.2025 — Petitioners (defendants) invoked Article 227 seeking certiorari to quash the temporary injunction granted in respondent No.1's permanent-injunction suit (O.S.No.83/2017, Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal, order dated 20.02.2019) as affirmed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC in M.A.No.1/2019 (order dated 30.07.2019). The plaintiff claimed to succeed as daughter of late Sri.Chikka Chinnappa with mutation (MR No-H8/16-17) in her favour; the defendants relied on a registered Will dated 16.07.1997, contended the property was self-acquired, and pointed to the mutation being stayed in R.A.No.85/2017. Held: the trial Court had taken note of the contentions and documents and exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff, affirmed in appeal; the questions of the Will and the character of the property could not be gone into at this stage as the matter was at trial; the suit was to be decided on merits uninfluenced by the interlocutory findings. The interim status quo order dated 08.11.2019 was continued till disposal of the suit; writ petition disposed of, no costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25218 W.P. No.42690/2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.42690/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B.N. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE V.NARAYANAPPA.

¶8

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶9

B.N. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE V. NARAYANAPPA.

¶10

SRI. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O B.N. VENKATESH.

¶11

ALL ARE R/AT BANAHALLI VILLAGE AVANIHOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-562101.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. GURU PRASAD C. REDDY, ADV.,)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS W/O LATE NAGAPPA.

¶16

R. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O CHIKKARAMAIAH.

¶17

BOTH ARE R/AT BANAHALLI VILLAGE AVANIHOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-562101.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:25218 W.P. No.42690/2019

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

(BY SRI. R. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI. K.S. RAMESH K.S. ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:09.08.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DTD.20.2.2019 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MULBAGAL IN O.S.NO.83/2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE.M AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DTD.30.7.2019 AT ANNEXURE-P PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MULBAGAL IN M.A.NO.1/2019 & ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶28

"1. Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC at Mulbagal in O.S.No.83/2017 produced at Annexure-'M' and consequently;

¶29

2. Quash the order dated 30.07.2019 at Annexure-'P' passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mulbagal in M.A.No.1/2019."

¶30

Sri.Guru Prasad C. Reddy, learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1

¶32

filed a suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25218 W.P. No.42690/2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') , which came to be allowed by the trial Court. It is submitted that the plaintiff claims to be a daughter of Sri.Chikka Chinnappa and filed the suit on 20.03.2017 and just before the filing of the suit, she got the revenue records mutated under MR No-H8/16-17. It is submitted that Sri.Chikka Chinnappa has died on 14.03.2009 and the revenue records got mutated in the year 2017 which was challenged by petitioner No.2 before the Appellate Authority in R.A.No.85/2017 and the said MR has been stayed. It is submitted that the petitioners are the nephew of Sri.Chikka Chinnappa, who executed registered Will dated 16.07.1997 as the property was a self acquired property of Sri.Chikka Chinnappa. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that without appreciating any of these aspects, the trial Court granted the temporary injunction, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court without giving any due weightage to the registered Will and the order passed

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:25218 W.P. No.42690/2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

in RA.No.85/2017 by the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar.

¶40

Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by vacating the temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. In alternate, he submits that this Court on 08.11.2019 has appreciated the merits and directed the parties to maintain status quo and the said status quo is still in force and if the said interim order is continued till the disposal of the suit, the purpose of the petition would be served. Hence, he seeks to pass the appropriate order.

¶41

Per contra, Sri.R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.K.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supports the orders of trial Court as well as Appellate Court and submits that in matters of this nature, the scope of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited, especially when the two Courts have concurrently held against the petitioners by considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable injury caused to respondent No.1/plaintiff, the temporary injunction has

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25218 W.P. No.42690/2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

been granted which cannot be interfered by this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction. It is submitted that the question with regard to the self acquired property or the ancestral property is required to be gone into by the trial Court during the course of trial. Even with regard to the correctness and validity of the Will is required to be gone into by the trial Court in the pending suit. It is submitted that both the Courts have applied their mind, exercised their discretionary power and granted relief, hence, order cannot be lightly interfered. He seeks to dismiss the petition. He fairly submits that if the status quo order granted by this Court is continued till the disposal of the suit also the purpose would be served. Hence, he seeks to pass an appropriate order.

¶45

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶46

counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advance on both sides.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:25218 W.P. No.42690/2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed OS.No.83/2017

¶51

against the petitioners herein and respondent No.2 for a relief of permanent injunction over the suit schedule property. The contention of respondent No.1/plaintiff is that she is the daughter of Sri.Chikka Chinnappa, who is given in marriage, and after the death of Sri.Chikka Chinnappa she succeeds to the estate. It is contended that after the death of Sri.Chikka Chinnappa, she got the revenue record mutated with regard to the suit schedule property in her name and is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Considering these aspects, the trial Court has granted temporary injunction, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. The contention of the petitioners/defendants is that the said Sri.Chikka Chinnappa has executed a registered Will dated 16.07.1997 and the suit schedule property is a self acquired property and the alleged RTC is in the name of respondent No.1/plaintiff has been stayed by the Assistant Commissioner in RA.No.85/2017 etc., cannot be gone into

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:25218 W.P. No.42690/2019

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

in this proceedings as now the matter is at the stage of trial. The trial Court considering all these aspects has come to a conclusion that respondent No.1/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and to protect the nature of the property till final adjudication of the suit, it has granted interim protection in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. I am of the considered view that the trial Court taking note of the contentions advanced and the documents available on record has come to the said conclusion and exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Ultimately, the suit pending between the parties is required to be adjudicated on its merits. The trial Court, while deciding the said suit, shall not be influenced by the finding recorded by it in its order dated 20.02.2019 or by the Appellate Court's order dated 30.07.2019 in MA.No.1/2019 and has to decide the suit on its merits. Keeping the aforesaid fact in mind, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the interim

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:25218 W.P. No.42690/2019

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

order granted by this Court on 08.11.2019 is continued till

¶60

the disposal of the suit. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62