Disposed¶57

Sri. Ramesha v. Smt. Sumitharamma

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2025WP/5468/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 certiorari writ petition; temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2; permanent injunction suit O.S.No.128/2016; appellate reversal in M.A.No.14/2017 dated 12.12.2019; status quo interim order of 16.03.2020 continued till disposal of suit; grantee versus encroachment possession dispute; Channagiri, Davanagere district; Karnataka High Court W.P. No. 5468 of 2020 (GM-CPC) disposed of with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by continuing the interim order of status quo granted on 16.03.2020 till disposal of O.S.No.128/2016; no order as to costs. ¶57

Sri. Ramesha Vs Smt. Sumitharamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by continuing the interim order of status quo granted on 16.03.2020 till disposal of O.S.No.128/2016; no order as to costs.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim order granted by this Court on 16.03.2020 directing maintenance of status quo should be made absolute and continue till the disposal of O.S.No.128/2016. +1 more

¶51

Court's answer

The interest of justice would be met if the interim order granted on 16.03.2020 is made absolute; accordingly, the interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to their possession as on that date shall continue till the disposal of the suit.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

The various contentions raised by the parties with regard to the grant made and their respective possession need not be gone into at this stage, especially when the suit itself is proceeding and is posted for cross-examination of DW-2 on 19.07.2025.

¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Defendant's writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari quashing of the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri in M.A.No.14/2017, whereby the appellate Court had reversed the trial Court's rejection (order dated 01.08.2017 dismissing I.A.No.1) of the original respondent-plaintiff's temporary injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 in O.S.No.128/2016 - a suit for permanent injunction in which the plaintiff asserted she was a grantee in possession of the suit schedule property and the petitioner-defendant denied encroachment, claiming rights derived through his uncle's grant. The High Court held that the rival contentions on the grant and possession need not be gone into at that interlocutory stage, the suit being posted for cross-examination of DW-2 on 19.07.2025, and disposed of the petition by directing that the interim order of status quo as to possession granted on 16.03.2020 shall continue till disposal of the suit; no order as to costs. (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:26570 WP No. 5468 of 2020

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 5468 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. RAMESHA S/O HARALAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT BENKIKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 556

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SRUTI C CHAGANTI., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. SUMITHARAMMA W/O LATE SANAPPA AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT BENKIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 556.

¶16

SINCE DECEASED., REP. BY LRs

¶17

1(a) LALITHAMMA, D/O LATE SANNAPPA., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶18

1(b) PRAKASH, S/O LATE SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶19

1(c) KARIYAPPA, S/O LATE SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶20

1(d) VENKATESH, S/O LATE SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26570 WP No. 5468 of 2020

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

R1(a) TO R1(b) AND R1(e) ARE R/AT BENKIKERE VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 522.

¶24

1(e) VANAJAKSHI, D/O LATE SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O BOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.

¶25

1(f) PADMA, D/O LATE SANNAPPA, W/O PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O MOLKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 535.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. VASUNDARA T.P FOR SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶28

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI IN M.A.NO.14/2017, PRODUCED AS ANNEXUREG, ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶33

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri in M.A.No.14/2017 produced as Annexure-'G';

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26570 WP No. 5468 of 2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

(ii) Consequentially issue an order or direction restoring the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri dismissing I.A.No.1 filed by the respondent in O.S.No.128/2016 dismissing I.A.No.1, produced as Annexure-E; and

¶37

(iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶38

Smt.Sruti C. Chaganti, learned counsel appearing

¶39

for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had encroached the suit schedule property, which has been denied by the petitioner in the written statement. It is submitted that application came to be filed for temporary injunction and the trial Court without considering the same, rejected the application. However, the Appellate Court without appreciating the material on record reversed the order of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. It is submitted that now the trial Court is proceeding with the matter and it is posted for Cross-examination of DW-2 on 19.07.2025, she seeks to continue the interim order granted by this court on 16.03.2020 till the disposal of the suit, so that the purpose of this petition

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:26570 WP No. 5468 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

would be served. Hence, she seeks to pass the appropriate order.

¶44

Per contra, Smt.Vasundara T.P. Advocate for Sri. P.M. Siddamallappa, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order of the Appellate Court and submits that the Appellate Court, after considering the pleadings and material on record, has recorded a categorical finding that the respondent/plaintiff has made out prima-facie case and has rightly restrained the petitioner from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶45

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions advanced.

¶46

The original respondent Smt.Sumithramma filed O.S.No.128/2016 seeking for judgment and decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner with regard to the suit schedule property, asserting that the plaintiff is a grantee

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:26570 WP No. 5468 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

and she is in possession of the suit schedule property and without any justifiable reason the petitioner/defendant is interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The said assertion of the respondent has been denied by the petitioner by contending that the petitioner's uncle has been granted land and the petitioner has derived the right to the said property. He specifically denied the encroachment as alleged. Be that as it may, the application filed by the respondent in this suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 came to be rejected by the trial Court on 01.08.2017. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal in M.A.No.14/2017, which came to be allowed by granting temporary injunction against the petitioner.

¶51

The parties to the proceedings have raised various contentions with regard to the grant made and their respective possession. In my considered view, those issues need not be gone into at this stage, especially when the suit itself is proceeded further and is now posted for Cross-examination of DW-2 on 19.07.2025. Hence, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met, if the interim order granted by this court on 16.03.2020 is made absolute till

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:26570 WP No. 5468 of 2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

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

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) Writ petition is disposed of.

¶58

ii) The interim order granted by this Court on 16.03.2020 directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to their possession as on the date shall continue till the disposal of the suit.

¶59

No order as to costs.

¶60

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶61

GRD

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri. Ramesha v. Smt. Sumitharamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ramesha v. Smt. Sumitharamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kempamma Vs Sri C Shivakumar

Sri a N Nagarajaiah Vs Late Nanjamma

Smt. Renukamma Vs Smt. Sharadamma

Sri. D. P. Gupta Vs Sri. B. Shankar Naik

Sri. Boriah Vs Sri. Obanayaka

Smt. a. v. Lavanya Lakshmi Vs M/S. Oasis Voyages Private Limited