Dismissed¶70

Smt. Chitthamma v. Thammanna

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2026WP/16666/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil; W.P. No.16666/2021 (GM-CPC); Article 227 Constitution of India; temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; O.S.No.249/2015; M.A.No.11/2016; modification of interim injunction; restriction of injunction to suit schedule property; exclusion of gramatana land; gramatana site allottees; Sy.No.11 Brahmasamudra village, I.D.Hally hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District; suit for permanent injunction; application for Court Commissioner; writ petition rejected (no perversity or error found).

What did the court decide?

The gramatana land is admittedly not the subject matter of the suit nor is any injunction sought against it; therefore the Appellate Court's restriction of the temporary injunction to the suit schedule property (Survey No.11), excluding the gramatana land, was justified.

Smt. Chitthamma Vs Thammanna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15973 W.P. No.16666/2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.16666/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. CHITTHAMMA W/O LATE POOJARI DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.

¶9

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

DYAVEERAMMA W/O CHIKKAKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶11

CHIKKADODDAIAH @ SANJJANNA S/O JAMPANNA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶13

DODDERAPPA S/O JAMPANN

¶14

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶15

SHIVAMMA D/O LINGANNA

¶16

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT DINNE GOLLARAHATTI

¶18

HAMLET OF BRAMHASAMUDRA I.D. HALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK 572 124 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. DEVARAJ, ADV., FOR SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A, ADV.,)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:15973 W.P. No.16666/2021

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

AND:

¶25

THAMMANNA S/O MANDALAHALLI KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶26

KARIYAMMA S/O MANDALAHALLI KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶27

CHITHAMNAMNA W/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶28

KIRAN KUMAR S/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶29

KAMALAMMA D/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶30

CHIDANANDA S/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶31

KAMALAKSHI D/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

¶32

CHITHANNA S/O HULIYANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶33

ALL ARE RES NOS.1-8 R/AT DINNE GOLLARA HATTI VILLAGE I D HALLI HOBLI MADUGIRI TALUK 572 124 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. VIVEK B. RAMAKRISHNA, ADV., FOR C/R1 TO R8)

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:15973 W.P. No.16666/2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S. 249/2015 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MADHUGIRI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. CALL FOR THE RECORDS M.A.NO.11/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MADHUGIRI. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 09.12.2020 PASSED IN M.A.NO.11/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MADHUGIRI AT ANNX-F & ETC.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2020 passed in M.A.No.11/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Madhugiri (for short, 'the

¶44

Appellate Court' ).

¶45

Sri.Devaraj, learned counsel for Sri.Lourdu Mariyappa A., learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submits that the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.249/2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Madhugiri (for short, 'the trial Court' ) against

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:15973 W.P. No.16666/2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the respondents-defendants for permanent injunction. The

¶50

trial Court, after hearing the parties, restrained the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. However, the defendants challenged the said order and the Appellate Court under the impugned order, allowed the appeal and modified the impugned order. It is submitted that the defendants, who claims to be in possession of the gramatana property are disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs, which has not been appreciated by the Appellate Court. It is further submitted that the trial Court, considering the fact that the revenue records are standing in the name of the plaintiffs as ancestral property, has rightly restrained the defendants from interfering with the same till the disposal of the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶51

Per contra, Sri.Vivek B.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 8 supports the order of the Appellate Court and submits that the respondents-

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15973 W.P. No.16666/2021

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

defendants have taken a specific plea before the trial Court that the defendants are the site allottees formed in a gramatana which is towards the eastern side of the suit schedule property and they have produced the allotment letter, khatas, tax paid receipts. It is submitted that the Appellate Court appreciating the said fact, has modified the trial Court's order by restricting the temporary injunction order to the suit schedule property. Hence, there is no merit in this petition and seeks to dismiss the same.

¶55

I heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶56

appearing on both the sides and perused the material available on record.

¶57

The records indicate that the petitioners filed O.S.No.249/2015 against the respondents-defendants herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of

¶58

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15973 W.P. No.16666/2021

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

the suit schedule property. It is to be noticed that the suit schedule property is referred as a land bearing Sy.No.11 totally measuring 4-16 guntas situated at Brahmasamudra village, I.D.Hally hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, which is bounded on the East by Gollarahatty gamatana, West by Bili betta, North by land of Yarranna sons and South by Oni in the same survey number and thereafter land in survey number 10.

¶61

In the said suit, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, which came to be allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 03.03.2016 by considering the revenue records and recorded the finding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. The said order of the trial Court was assailed by the defendants in MA No.11/2016 and the Appellate Court by order dated 09.12.2020 modified the order dated 03.03.2016 restricting the injunction order to the suit schedule property. The Appellate Court, taking note of the defence of the defendants, who have specifically pleaded

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:15973 W.P. No.16666/2021

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

and contented that the plaintiffs are in possession of Survey No.11 of Brahmasamudra Village and they are the allottees and their property is towards the eastern side of the suit schedule property and in support of their respective possession over the suit schedule property, the parties have produced the documents. The Appellate Court, considering the said definite stand of the defendants, modified the temporary injunction order by restricting and restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property in Survey No.11 and not with respect to gramatana land.

¶66

It appears that the plaintiffs are aggrieved by restricting of the temporary injunction order with regard to gramatana land. Admittedly, the gramatana land is not the subject matter of the suit nor any injunction is sought against the same. It is also to be noticed that the plaintiffs have filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner to measure the suit schedule property,

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:15973 W.P. No.16666/2021

¶68

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

considering the said aspect also the Appellate Court has modified the order of the trial Court. I do not find any perversity or error in the order under challenge calling for interference in the petition. Hence, the petition is devoid of

¶71

merits and the same is accordingly rejected .

¶72

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶73

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt. Chitthamma v. Thammanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chitthamma v. Thammanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Vs Chandan

Sri Ramappa Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Smt Dhanavanthi Vs Mr Joseph Antony Moras

Ravi G.K. Vs Smt.Parameshwari Amma

Sri Nagappa N G Vs Secretary

Sri. Syed Aslam Vs Sri. M S Dinesh