Sri. Boriah Vs Sri. Obanayaka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Boriah Vs Sri. Obanayaka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 23.09.2019 in M.A.No.24/2018 set aside; trial Court's order dated 02.11.2018 in O.S.No.179/2016 on I.A.No.1 (granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) affirmed; no order as to cost.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should be issued quashing the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere in M.A.No.24/2018 (Annexure-G) +1 more

Court's answer

The trial Court, by its order dated 02.11.2018, rightly recorded a finding that the petitioner/plaintiff had made out a prima facie case based on the documents placed before it.

Ratio / Principle

The approach of the appellate Court in reversing the grant of temporary injunction is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law.

Key takeaways

The revenue records prima facie establish that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession and is the owner of the suit schedule property, and the registered Will executed by Sri. Obaiah further establishes the plaintiff's possession and title.ratio¶69
The finding recorded by the appellate Court runs contrary to the settled principles of law governing grant of temporary injunction.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil - Temporary injunction - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Certiorari under Article 227, Constitution of India - Plaintiff in O.S.No.179/2016 (suit for permanent injunction) was granted temporary injunction by the trial Court (order dated 02.11.2018) on the basis of revenue records mutated in his name (M.R.No.H1/2013-14) pursuant to a registered Will dated 04.02.2013 executed by Obaiah, the childless deceased original owner; the first appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere) in M.A.No.24/2018 (order dated 23.09.2019) reversed the injunction, holding the presumption from revenue records rebuttable and requiring the plaintiff to prove the Will by seeking a suit for declaration, and directed maintenance of status quo; the High Court held the appellate Court's approach perverse and contrary to settled principles - revenue records prima facie establish the plaintiff's possession and ownership, and the registered Will further establishes possession and title; writ petition allowed, impugned order set aside and trial Court's order affirmed; no order as to cost. (Paras 5-7)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26632 WP No. 50324 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

WRIT PETITION NO. 50324 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. BORIAH

S/O LATE GONICHIKARA DODDAOBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

R/O. DASARAAMUTHENAHALLI VILLAGE, NAYAKANAHATTY HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

1(A) BORAMMA

W/O LATE D BORAIAH

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

1(B) MAHABALESHWARA NAYAKA G B S/O LATE D BORAIAH

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

1(C) THOTAPPA G B

S/O LATE D BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS PRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER

PETITIONER 1(A) BORAMMA

ALL ARE R/O DASARAMUTTENAHALLI NAYAKANAHATTY HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK 577522

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26632 WP No. 50324 of 2019

HC-KAR

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. OBANAYAKA S/O. GUDDADA OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

SRI. UMESH S/O. OBANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

SMT. SUVARNAMMA D/O. OBANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

SMT. PALAAMMA W/O. OBANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/O. DASARAHALLI NAYAKANAHATTY HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.MANOHAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NAGARAU S.,)

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26632 WP No. 50324 of 2019

HC-KAR

CHALLAKERE IN M.A.NO.24/2018 DATED 23.09.2019 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION AND OTHERS.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

"i. Issue writ of certiorari or any other order

in the nature of writ quashing the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere in M.A.No.24/2018 dated 23.09.2019 produced as ANNEXURE-G to the writ petition.

ii. Cost and such other reliefs deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

Sri Siddappa B.M, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners submits that, the petitioner/plaintiff has

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26632 WP No. 50324 of 2019

HC-KAR

filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondents based on the registered Will dated 04.02.2013 executed by Obaiah S/o Dasaiah. It is submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction which was duly considered by the trial Court and

by well reasoned order, granted temporary injunction which was reversed by the appellate Court under the impugned order by recording the finding in paragraph Nos.25 to 28 that though the revenue records standing in the name of the plaintiff, the presumption is a rebuttable presumption and the petitioners are required to establish the title based on the Will by seeking appropriate relief of declaration. It is further submitted that the finding of the appellate Court is more than the scope of the appeal and exceeds its jurisdiction. It is submitted that the appellate Court is only required to seek the correctness of the impugned order. However, the Appellate Court has recorded its findings with regard to the registered Will, which is impermissible. Even bare reading of the reasoning

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26632 WP No. 50324 of 2019

HC-KAR

of the appellate Court in paragraph Nos.25 and 26 shows that the appellate Court accepts the case of the plaintiff that revenue records are standing in the name of the plaintiff and there is a registered Will in his favour. However, it has come to a perverse finding that a presumption of the revenue records is rebuttable, Will is required to be proved and directed the parties to maintain the status quo . Hence, he seeks to confirm the order of the trial Court granting the temporary injunction by setting aside the order of the appellate Court.

3. Per contra , Sri V.Manohar, advocate for Sri Nagaraja S, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 supports the order of the appellate Court and submits that the respondents have also placed the documents before the trial Court which has been considered by the trial Court in paragraph No.10 which indicates that the revenue records are standing in the name of Sri. Obaiah and based on such documents, it can be assumed that the respondents are in possession of the

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26632 WP No. 50324 of 2019

HC-KAR

suit schedule property and the same has been rightly appreciated by the appellate Court and come to conclusion that the presumption of revenue records as claimed by the plaintiff is rebuttable and the Will is required to be proved by the plaintiff in the suit. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.179/2016 for relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, application I.A.No.1 was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, which came to be allowed by the trial Court on 02.11.2018 which was reversed by the appellate Court in M.A.No.24/2018 by allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. The trial Court while considering the case of the petitioner/plaintiff for temporary injunction, has recorded the finding from paragraph Nos.8 to 12 that the

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26632 WP No. 50324 of 2019

HC-KAR

suit schedule property originally belonged to Obaiah and he

had no children and the said Obaiah died on 27.02.2013 and he has executed the registered Will dated 04.02.2013 and based on the said registered Will, the revenue records of the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of

the plaintiff as per M.R.No.H1/2013-14. The trial Court by appreciating the revenue records standing in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff as per the aforesaid M.R and based on the Will prima facie , came to the conclusion that the petitioner/plaintiff made out a case for grant of temporary injunction and recorded the finding that irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the interim relief is not granted and in my considered view, the trial Court under the order dated 02.11.2018 has rightly recorded finding with regard to the prima facie case made out by the petitioner/plaintiff based on the documents placed before it. The appellate Court reversed the aforesaid finding by recording the reasons that revenue records are standing in the name of the plaintiff based on the Will. However, the

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26632 WP No. 50324 of 2019

HC-KAR

said presumption is rebuttable and the petitioner/plaintiff is required to prove the Will in the appropriate proceedings by seeking a suit for declaration.

In my considered view, the approach of the appellate Court is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. The plaintiff has placed sufficient material before the Court to show that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. The revenue records prima facie establishes that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession and owner of suit schedule property and in addition to that, a registered Will executed by Sri. Obaiah was produced which further establishes the portion and title on suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Hence, the finding recorded by the appellate Court would run contrary to the settled principles of law for grant of temporary injunction.

For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26632 WP No. 50324 of 2019

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. The writ petition is hereby allowed .

ii. The impugned order dated 23.09.2019 passed in M.A.No.24/2018 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere is set aside by affirming the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere in O.S.No.179/2016 on I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

iii. No Order as to cost.

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31