Partly allowed¶59

Hajirambi v. Giddaiah Gowda

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2026WP/23973/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Art. 227 writ, GM-CPC, Karnataka HC, Thirthahalli courts; temporary injunction Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC rejected and affirmed, writ allowed-in-part; status quo on possession till disposal of suit; prima facie possession, RTC, pakka book, Saguvali Chit grant, survey renumbering Sy.No.17 to Sy.No.29, check bandi, GPA discrepancy, POA holder, permanent injunction suit O.S.No.59/2020, MA.No.1/2023.

What did the court decide?

Both parties directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit (O.S.No.59/2020); the specific prayer to quash the impugned orders was not expressly carried out. ¶59

Hajirambi Vs Giddaiah Gowda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case of lawful possession and enjoyment of land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.29 (earlier Sy.No.17) of Sirnelli Village, so as to warrant interim protection pending disposal of O.S.No.59/2020. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

The parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit; the writ petition is accordingly allowed-in-part.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

Interim status quo was directed because the petitioner, in the suit, is required to establish lawful possession by producing documentary evidence and adducing oral evidence.

¶53

Key takeaways

The RTC for the said survey number indicates the name of the petitioner's husband in respect of 2 acres, which supported the petitioner's prima facie claim as grantee of the land.ratio¶48
The respondent's contention that the petitioner is not the wife of the original grantee (based on discrepancy in the grantee's father's name between the grant certificate and the GPA) is beyond the pleadings and was not taken in the written statement.ratio¶54
If such contention regarding the petitioner not being the wife of the original grantee is raised, the trial Court has to take note of the same while deciding the suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, W.P. No.23973/2023 (GM-CPC), decided on 11 June 2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil (oral order, sole signatory). Petitioner Hajirambi (rep. by POA holder Samiulla) challenged (i) the trial Court's order dated 17.12.2022 rejecting her temporary injunction application (IA No.1) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.No.59/2020 (permanent injunction suit against the LRs. of Giddaiah Gowda) and (ii) the Appellate Court's affirmance dated 21.08.2023 in MA.No.1/2023. Relying on the RTC showing the petitioner's husband's name for 2 acres and other revenue documents, the Court allowed the writ petition in part, directing both parties to maintain status quo over possession of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. The respondents' plea that a discrepancy in the grantee's father's name between the grant certificate and the GPA cast doubt on the petitioner's status was held to be beyond the pleadings (absent from the written statement), with the trial Court to consider it in the suit if raised.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28211 W.P. No.23973/2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23973/2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HAJIRAMBI W/O KHADAR SAB AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST HANAGERE POST SHIRNELLI VILLAGE MANDAGADDE HOBLI THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REP. BY HER POA HOLDER SAMIULLA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. NIREEKSHA D.J. ADV., FOR SRI. RAKSHITH JOIS Y.P. ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

GIDDAIAH GOWDA DEAD BY LRS.

¶15

MANJUNATHA S/O GIDDAIAH GOWDA MAJOR.

¶16

PRAVINA S/O MANJUNATHA MAJOR.

¶17

LEELAVATHI W/O MANJUNATHA MAJOR.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28211 W.P. No.23973/2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/OF. HANAGERE POST SHIRNELLI VILLAGE MANDAGADDE HOBLI THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577226.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. ASHWATH C.M. ADV.,)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDER ON IA NO. 1 DTD 17.12.2022 IN OS NO.59/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND IS ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SAME. DECLARE THAT THE ORDER DTD 21.08.2023 IN MA NO. 1/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC THIRTHAHALLI PRODUCED AT ANNX-B IS ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SAME & ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.12.2022 passed in O.S.No.59/2020 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli (for short 'the trial Court') and order dated 21.08.2023 passed in MA.No.1/2023 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli (for short 'the Appellate Court').

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:28211 W.P. No.23973/2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Smt.Nireeksha D.J., learned counsel appearing

¶32

for Sri.Rakshith Jois Y.P., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a suit in OS.No.59/2020 for permanent injunction against the

¶33

respondents/defendants. In the said suit, an application seeking temporary injunction was filed, which came to be rejected by the trial Court solely on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the petitioner has produced number of documents along with the appeal in MA.No.1/2023; however, the Appellate Court recorded incorrect finding that based on the documents produced by the petitioner, Sy.No.17 which was granted to the petitioner’s husband had been re-numbered as Sy.No.29 and that there was no check bandi. It is further submitted that the documents produced before the Appellate Court are produced herein, which clearly demonstrate a prima facie case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:28211 W.P. No.23973/2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

grantee of land measuring 2 acres, presently bearing Sy.No.29 of Sirnelli Village, Mandagadde Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluk. Hence, she seeks to allow the application for temporary injunction as respondent/defendants are interfering with the petitioner’s possession.

¶38

Per contra, Sri.Ashwath C.M., learned counsel

¶39

appearing for the respondents opposed the petition and submits that the petitioner has not stated with regard to the grant of land, the change of survey number from 17 to 29 and no material was placed to substantiate that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that in the written statement, the respondents have clearly stated that they are not interfering with the petitioner’s suit schedule property and that they are cultivating land measuring 17 guntas in Sy.No.17 which was granted in favour of defendant No.1. It is further submitted that defendants own land in Sy.No.13 to an extent of 2 acre and one Sri.Tulasidhar owns 6 acres of land in Sy.No.17 of Sirnelli Village. It is

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28211 W.P. No.23973/2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

also submitted that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have concurrently held that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, and rejected the application; therefore, the same does not call for any interference. It is also submitted that the GPA produced by the petitioner herein reveals discrepancy in the name of the grantee's father as mentioned in the grant certificate as well as the GPA, thereby casting doubt on the petitioner’s claim. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶43

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶44

counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material on record.

¶45

The petitioner has filed a suit in OS.No.59/2020 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28211 W.P. No.23973/2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking temporary injunction, which came to be rejected by trial Court and the same was affirmed by the Appellate Court. The contention of the plaintiff is that she is in possession and enjoyment of land measuring 2 acres, including 4 guntas of kharab land, situated in Sy.No.29 of Sirnelli Village, Mandagadde Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluk. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband was granted land as an unauthorized occupant vide order dated 03.12.1974 and thereafter, a Saguvali Chit was issued to the extent of 2 acre in Sy.No.17. Subsequently, the land was phoded and the survey number was reassigned as Sy.No.29, which can be noticed from the pakka book and revenue records placed along with the petition. The RTC for the said survey number indicates the name of the petitioner's husband in respect of 2 acres. The petitioner has also produced the Revision Settlement Akarbhand and the tax paid receipts from the years 2006 to 2010, which indicates that the petitioner

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:28211 W.P. No.23973/2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

has paid the tax to the suit schedule property. Considering the aforesaid documents, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the

¶53

suit schedule property till disposal of the suit, as the petitioner in the suit is required to establish lawful possession by producing documentary evidence and adducing oral evidence.

¶54

It is also to be noticed that the present GPA has been executed by the wife of the original grantee in favour of her son to represent her in these proceedings, for recording her reasons for not appearing in the proceedings. In my considered view, this contention urged by the learned counsel for the respondent is beyond the pleading and such contention is not taken in the written statement, that the petitioner is not the wife of the original grantee. If such a contention is raised, the trial Court has to take note of the same while deciding the suit. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:28211 W.P. No.23973/2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

ORDER

¶59