Dismissed¶71

Sri. Bhadregowda v. Smt. Bhagyamma

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/14688/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC; Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC appeal dismissed; writ petition Articles 226/227 GM-CPC; Karnataka High Court Chikkamagaluru; O.S.No.468/2018 permanent injunction; Sy.No.202 Hadhihalli Village, 4 acres 35 guntas; prima facie title and possession concurrent findings; Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Annexure-L agreements without survey number confer no right; Assistant Commissioner order 09.12.2020 set aside grant; W.P.No.11170/2023 Ashraya scheme stay; liberty to seek variation on subsequent events; petition dismissed 17.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

The agreements produced at Annexure-L series, though indicating the names of the defendants, contain no reference to the survey number and therefore do not confer any right on the defendants. ¶60

Sri. Bhadregowda Vs Smt. Bhagyamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the trial Court's order dated 25.02.2019 granting temporary injunction in O.S.No.468/2018 and the Appellate Court's order dated 24.01.2020 dismissing the appeal warrants interference. +2 more

¶33

Court's answer

If the petitioners' impleadment application in W.P.No.11170/2023 is allowed, that writ petition is dismissed, and the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 09.12.2020 cancelling the grant attains finality, the petitioners may seek variation of the trial Court's order by pointing out subsequent events.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

The agreements produced at Annexure-L series, though indicating the names of the defendants, contain no reference to the survey number and therefore do not confer any right on the defendants.

¶60

Key takeaways

The chronology of events and materials on record unequivocally establish that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; the trial Court rightly protected the plaintiff's interest by granting temporary injunction, and the writ petition lacks merit.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), single judge (Vijaykumar A. Patil), writ petition (GM-CPC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by ten petitioners-defendants challenging (i) the order dated 25.02.2019 of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru allowing I.A.No.1 (Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC) and granting temporary injunction in O.S.No.468/2018 — a suit by Smt. Bhagyamma for permanent injunction over 4 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.202 of Hadhihalli Village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk — and (ii) the order dated 24.01.2020 of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru in M.A.No.15/2019 dismissing the defendants' appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. The Court held that the Annexure-L agreements executed by Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Ltd. with the defendants, lacking any reference to the survey number, confer no right on them; that the record unequivocally establishes the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, vindicating the concurrent prima facie findings of title and possession by both Courts. Subsequent events — the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 09.12.2020 setting aside the plaintiff's grant (itself under challenge) and the stay ordered in W.P.No.11170/2023 regarding earmarking of the land for the Ashraya scheme — were noted, with liberty indicated to seek variation of the trial Court's order should the cancellation attain finality. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.14688/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. BHADREGOWDA S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶8

SRI. H.R. SANDEEPA S/O REVANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶9

SRI. H.L. JAGADISHA S/O LAXMANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶10

SRI. H.P. VIJAYA S/O PARVATHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶11

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. H.T. PRASANNA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶13

SRI. H.B. PRASHANTHA S/O BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶14

SRI. H.G. VIJAYA KUMAR S/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶15

SRI. NAGARAJA S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI. H.C. PUTTARAJEGOWDA S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶19

SRI. H.H. LINGAPPAGOWDA S/O HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HADIHALLI VILLAGE, MALALURU POST AMBALE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577101.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.B. ONKARA, ADV.,)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O SRI. BHADREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDENTS OF HADIHALLI VILLAGE MALALURU POST, AMBALE HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577101.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. VIKRAM H. BHAT, ADV., FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADV.,)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN MISC.APPEAL NO.15/2019 ON 24.01.2020 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-H. CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE IST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU ON I.A.NO.1 FILED IN O.S.NO.468/2018 DATED 25.02.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-E & ETC.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.02.2019 passed in O.S.No.468/2018 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkamagaluru (for short, ‘the trial Court’ ) and the order dated 24.01.2020 passed in M.A.No.15/2019 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkamagaluru (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’ ).

¶34

Sri.K.B.Onkara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants submits that the respondentplaintiff has filed a suit for injunction against the petitioners herein. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments as well as the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is specifically contended that

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

10 acre of land in the same survey number is granted to the beneficiaries under the scheme Nava Grama Yojane and in the very same land, the respondent-plaintiff is claiming to be in possession which is factually incorrect. It is submitted that the Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Ltd., has entered into separate agreement with the petitioners-defendants for allotment of sites which they are claiming and the same land is reserved for formation of sites. It is further submitted that after the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court, which has been affirmed in the appeal. The grant of land in favour of the plaintiff was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 09.12.2020. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned orders by allowing the petition.

¶38

Per contra, Sri.Vikram H.Bhat, learned counsel for Smt.Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned orders of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and submits that both the Courts have concurrently held that the

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

respondent-plaintiff has made out prima facie case with regard to the title and possession and granted temporary injunction, which cannot be interfered with. Insofar as the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 09.12.2020 is

¶42

concerned, it is submitted that the same is under challenge. It is further submitted that the authorities proceeded to allot the land for the Ashraya scheme, which was granted to the plaintiff and such action of the authority is challenged in W.P.No.11170/2023 and this Court has stayed the further proceedings, which affirms the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶43

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶44

The respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.468/2018 before the trial Court seeking the relief

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

of permanent injunction against the defendants, their men, agents, etc. from illegally and forcibly trespassing into the suit schedule property or causing damages to the crops grown and also to the fence put up around the schedule property or in any way interfering with and causing obstructions from peaceful cultivation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is measuring 4 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.202 of Hadhihalli Village, Amble Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk. The petitioners have opposed the said plaint by filing the written statement. The plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The trial Court, under the impugned order, has allowed the application by restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The said order of the trial Court was assailed in M.A.No.15/2019 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2020.

¶52

It is to be noticed that the respondent-plaintiff has specifically pleaded before the trial Court that the plaintiff has been in unauthorised occupation and enjoyment of suit schedule property from 1982-83 onwards and she had filed an application under Form No.53 before the jurisdictional Tahasildar and the application of the plaintiff was duly considered by the Regularisation Committee and passed an order on 15.12.2017 granting the suit schedule property. It is also specifically contended that the plaintiff has been issued with a Saguvali Chit and thereafter the records were mutated as per M.R.No.18/2017-18. It is specifically contended that the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from 1982 onwards till this day. In order to prove the grant and factum of possession, the plaintiff has produced the grant

¶53

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

order, Saguvali Chit, Mutation Register Extract and the RTC. The perusal of the RTC indicates that the name of the plaintiff is reflected in respect of 4 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.202 of Hadhihalli Village. The said RTC also indicates that 46 acres 11 guntas is the total extent and out of which 26 acres 20 guntas is shown as gomal land; 2 acres is shown as a graveyard; and 4 acres 35 guntas is shown as standing in the name of the plaintiff. Considering the said document as well as the document produced by the defendants i.e., the communication between the Tahasildar and Deputy Commissioner, which is referred in para 17, the trial Court proceeded to record the finding that the plaintiff has made out the prima facie case with regard to the title and possession and granted temporary injunction. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the material on record, reaffirmed the said finding of the trial Court.

¶56

It is to be noticed that the defendants are contending that the very same land is earmarked for

¶57

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

formation of sites and Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Ltd., has entered into an agreement with the petitioners. The agreements produced at Annexure-L series, though indicate the name of the defendants, there is no reference

¶60

with regard to the survey number. Hence, the said documents would not confer any right on the defendants. It is to be noticed that after the impugned orders, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the grant made in favour of the plaintiff and the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 09.12.2020 has set aside the grant of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has contended that the said order is under challenge. The respondent has placed on record the order dated 09.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.11170/2023 and contend that the very respondent-plaintiff has challenged the action of the authorities wherein the land granted to the plaintiff which is the suit schedule property is now earmarked for the

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:29760 W.P. No.14688/2021

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

purpose of Ashraya scheme and this Court in the aforesaid order has stayed the further proceedings.

¶65

The aforesaid chronology of events and the material placed on record unequivocally makes it clear that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and considering the same, the trial Court has rightly protected the interest of the plaintiff by granting temporary injunction. I do not find any merit in the present petition.

¶66

It is to be noticed that the petitioners have contended that the petitioners have filed an application for impleadment in W.P.No.11170/2023 and if the said application is allowed and the said writ petition filed by the plaintiff is dismissed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 09.12.2020 cancelling the grant attains finality, it is open for the petitioners to seek variation of the order of the trial Court by pointing out the subsequent events.

¶67