Seshappa Vs Lakshmana

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2022 PASSED BY THE THIRD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26620 WP No. 17893 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BANGALORE ANNEXURE-H CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 5 IN OS.NO.289/2019 BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANNXURE-G RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.07.2020 passed in OS No.289 of 2019 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court', for short) and the order dated 24.06.2022 passed in MA No.56 of 2020 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court', for short).

¶27

2. Sri. Shivaramu H.C. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent herein. In

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26620 WP No. 17893 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court solely on the ground that the plaintiff in the suit has failed to disclose the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent for partition. It is submitted that the Appellate Court as well concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner is the grantee of the suit schedule property as per the grant order dated 20.05.2010 and thereafter, all the revenue records are standing in his name and hence he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the material placed before it and the said material prima facie establishes the title as well as the possession of the suit schedule property.

¶31

3. It is further submitted that the respondent has filed a suit for the relief of partition, which came to be dismissed on 25.03.2021. Thereafter, he preferred Regular Appeal i.e. RA No.120 of 2021, which also came to be dismissed and by suppressing the Regular First Appeal he files another Regular First Appeal before this Court, which is numbered as RFA No.903 of 2022, which is pending in the Registry with office

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26620 WP No. 17893 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

objections. It is also contented that this Court, while issuing notice, has considered the prima facie case and directed parties to maintain status quo vide order dated 28.10.2022 which was extended on 31.01.2026 and on 24.02.2026 and if the said order is continued till the disposal of the suit, ends of justice would be met. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶35

4. This Court issued Court notice to the respondent on the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that he has no instructions in the matter. The Court notice issued to the respondent has been returned with an endorsement as "unclaimed". Hence, service on the said respondent is held sufficient and there is no representation for the respondent.

¶36

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶37

6. The petitioner herein has filed OS No.289 of 2019 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the respondent herein. In the said suit, he filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, 'CPC') seeking

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26620 WP No. 17893 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

temporary injunction. The Trial Court, considering the rival submissions rejected the said application solely on the ground that the plaintiff in the suit has suppressed the filing of OS No.1041 of 2018 filed by the defendant seeking for partition. The said order of the Trial Court was affirmed by the Appellate Court in MA No.56 of 2020 vide order dated 24.06.2022.

¶41

7. It is to be noticed that the primary contention of the petitioner/plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the petitioner/ plaintiff was granted 14 guntas of land vide grant order dated 20.05.2010 by the Jurisdictional Tahsildar and pursuant to the said grant, mutations were effected and revenue records were standing in his name and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶42

8. To rebut the said contention, the respondent has filed a detailed written statement, denying the assertion by contending that the suit schedule property is a joint family property. The plaintiff, in the suit has categorically pleaded that the properties were divided among the brothers way back in the year 1982 and thereafter, the grant is made exclusively in favour of the plaintiff in 2010. The materials placed before the

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26620 WP No. 17893 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Court clearly demonstrate that the suit schedule property is granted in favour of the petitioner herein. Insofar as the contention with regard to the property being a joint family property is concerned, the same is required yet to be adjudicated in the appeal filed by the respondent.

¶46

9. It is to be noticed that the suit for partition filed by the respondent in OS No.1041 of 2018 was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.03.2021 which was also affirmed by the Appellate Court in RA.No.120 of 2021 vide judgment dated 01.12.2021. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the respondent has preferred another Regular First Appeal i.e. RFA No.903 of 2022 which is pending before this Court is taken note of. Unless the right of the respondent is determined by way of proper adjudication and the Court records a finding that the property is a joint family property, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is required to be protected till disposal of suit. The material on record establishes that the petitioner/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, has a balance of convenience, to grant an order of temporary injunction during the pendency of the said

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:26620 WP No. 17893 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

suit and if it is refused, irreparable loss or injury will be caused to the petitioner. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) Writ Petition is allowed .

¶52

ii) The impugned order dated 08.07.2020 passed in OS No.289 of 2019 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and the order dated 24.06.2022 passed in MA No.56 of 2020 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore are hereby set aside.

¶53

iii) The respondent/defendant is restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

¶54

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶55

MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Seshappa v. Lakshmana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seshappa v. Lakshmana

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 Chowdamma Vs Eshwar

S Muni Reddy Vs Sri Sathish Reddy

Sri. Ghana Vijayaraju Vs Smt. Renukamma

Sri Bisanna Vs Smt a R Rekha

Sri K S Raghunatha Setty Vs Shree Nandi Hospital

Sri Poojappa Vs Smt. Akkayyamma