Allowed¶64

Smt. Munirathnamma v. H T Muniraju

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2025WP/8505/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (S Vishwajith Shetty, 25.11.2025), WP 8505/2020 (GM-CPC), Article 227 — writ allowed; interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC cannot be granted against co-owners; appellate order 06.06.2020 in M.A.No.10/2017 (VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural) set aside; relates to O.S.No.541/2016 permanent injunction suit and pending partition suit O.S.No.1564/2012 challenging release deed dated 19.11.2012 and gift deed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the order dated 06.06.2020 passed in M.A.No.10 of 2017 by the Court of VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District is set aside; pending IAs disposed of as they do not survive. ¶64

Smt. Munirathnamma Vs H T Muniraju — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court rightly rejected I.A.No.I in O.S.No.541 of 2016 on the ground that no injunction can be granted as against the co-owners of the suit schedule property. +1 more

¶54

Court's answer

No injunction can be granted as against the co-owners of the suit schedule property; the trial Court rightly rejected the application (I.A.No.I) filed in O.S.No.541 of 2016.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The appellate Court failed to appreciate that no injunction can be granted against co-owners and erred in allowing the miscellaneous appeal filed against the order rejecting I.A.No.I in O.S.No.541 of 2016.

¶54

Key takeaways

In the circumstances — including that the release deed under which the respondent claims possession is under challenge in O.S.No.1564 of 2012 as illegal and void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs' share — the appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.I filed in O.S.No.541 of 2016.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim injunction against co-owners refused; Article 227 writ allowed. Defendants, who are co-owners and plaintiffs in pending partition suit O.S.No.1564 of 2012 (wherein the release deed of 19.11.2012 relied upon by the respondent and the gift deed in favour of Smt. Ramakka are prayed to be declared illegal/void ab initio/sham), challenged the appellate Court's allowance of M.A.No.10 of 2017. Holding that no injunction can be granted as against the co-owners of the suit schedule property, and that the appellate Court was therefore not justified in interfering with the trial Court's discretionary rejection of I.A.No.I under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.No.541 of 2016 (permanent injunction suit), the High Court set aside the order dated 06.06.2020 passed by the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 8505 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA @ MUNIYELAGAMMA, DECEASED, PETITIONER NOs.4 TO 7 ARE THE LRS.

¶9

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶10

SMT. RAMAKKA W/O LATE M. RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

¶11

SRI SATYANARAYANA S/O LATE M.T. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE M T GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶14

SRI DATTATREYA S/O LATE M.T. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶15

SRI HULURAPPA S/O LATE M T GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶16

SRI UMESH S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶17

SRI HARISH S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶22

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HIRANDALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI AJITH N, ADV., FOR SRI S. SUBRAMANYA, ADV., FOR -2 TO P-5; P-1 DEAD BY LRs P-2 TO P-5 V/ DTD 19.11.2025)

¶25

AND:

¶26

H.T. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT HIRANDALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶27

ALSO R/AT C/O NAGARAJA (KODAPPA) NO.8/2, A CROSS, NEAR VINAYAKA PRINTING PRESS, BASAPPA GARDEN, PIPELINE MUNESHWARARAM MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI K.H. THIMMAIAH, ADV.)

¶30

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.06.2020 PASSED IN M.A.10/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Defendants are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 06.06.2020 passed in M.A.No.10 of 2017 by the Court of VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶39

Respondent herein has filed O.S.No.541 of 2016 before the Jurisdictional civil Court, Bangalore, Rural District, Bangalore seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. The contesting defendants have filed written statement opposing the suit claim. I.A.No.I was filed in the said suit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the respondent herein, which was opposed by the contesting defendants and the written statement filed by them was adopted as objections to I.A.No.I. The trial Court, vide the order dated 03.01.2017, rejected I.A.No.I filed on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.541 of 2016

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

and challenging the said order, the plaintiffs had approached the appellate Court in M.A.No.10 of 2017, which was allowed on 06.06.2020. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before the Court.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had earlier filed O.S.No.1564 of 2012 before the jurisdictional Civil Court, Bangalore District seeking partition and separate possession of the joint property and respondent herein is defendant no.2 in the said suit. The respondent is the direct brother of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein. The trial Court having appreciated that no injunction can be granted against the co-owner of the property has rightly rejected I.A.No.I. The appellate Court having failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter has erred in allowing the miscellaneous appeal. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶45

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff submits that defendants have executed a release deed on 19.11.2012 in favour of the respondent herein and on the strength of the said release deed, the respondent is

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the respondent herein had executed gift deed in favour of defendant no.1 in O.S.No.1564 of 2012. The appellate court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly allowed the appeal. He accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.

¶49

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who are the direct sisters of the respondent herein along with others have filed O.S.No.1564 of 2012 before the jurisdictional civil Court seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of item Nos. 1 to 6 of the suit schedule property and in the said suit, a declaration is also sought that the release deed obtained by the respondent herein is void ab initio and not binding on their share and further declaration is also sought to declare the gift deed executed by the respondent no.1 herein in favour of defendant no.1 in O.S.No.1564 of 2012, namely Smt. Ramakka as a sham document and not binding on the share of plaintiff in O.S.No.1564 of 2012. In the said suit, respondent is party defendant no.2 and he has filed his written statement.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

After a lapse of 4 years from the date of institution

¶54

of suit in O.S.No.1564 of 2012, a separate suit is filed by the respondent herein who is party defendant no.2 in O.S.No.1564 of 2012 and in the said suit which is filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners herein in respect of the property which is subject matter of O.S.No.1564 of 2012, an application was also filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The trial Court having appreciated that no injunction can be granted as against the co-owners of the suit schedule property had rightly rejected the said application. But the appellate Court has failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter and has erred in allowing the miscellaneous appeal filed against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.I in O.S.No.541 of 2016.

¶55

The respondent herein claims that he is in possession of the suit schedule property under a release deed said to have been executed by defendant nos.1 and 2 in his favour on 19.11.2012. It is relevant to note here that in O.S.No.1564 of 2012, a prayer is made by the plaintiffs who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the present suit to declare that

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:48932 WP No. 8505 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

the said release deed was obtained by the respondent herein illegal. Therefore, the same is void ab initio and not binding on their share in the suit schedule property. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appellate Court was

¶60

not justified in interfering with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A.No.I filed in O.S.No.541 of 2016.

¶61

Accordingly, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶64

(ii) The order dated 06.06.2020 passed in M.A.No.10 of 2017 by the Court of VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District is set aside.

¶65

Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶68

NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt. Munirathnamma v. H T Muniraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Munirathnamma v. H T Muniraju

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

H S Jayappa Vs K B Prakash

A Mohammed Rasool @ Mujeeb Pasha Vs Smt. Vageeswari S

Sri Jayarma Vs Smt. G S Uma

Govindaswamy Vs N. Rajamma

Sri C Ramakrishnaiah Vs Poojari Gowda

M/S Hajee Ebrahim Sait Wakf Vs M/S Indian Wood and Industries