Smt Manjula Vs Smt Kanthamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt Manjula Vs Smt Kanthamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both petitions disposed of together: (i) WP No.30566/2025 disposed of directing plaintiff and defendants to maintain status quo over the disputed 7 ft East-West x 48 ft North-South portion on the Western side of the defendants' house as per the rough sketch; (ii) appellate Court's order dated 23.09.2025 in M.A. No.6/2022 set aside; (iii) interim injunction order dated 26.03.2021 on I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC modified to that extent; (iv) WP No.17871/2024 (police protection) rendered infructuous; (v) Trial Court requested to expedite the trial subject to cooperation of both parties; (vi) no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Judgment and Order dated 23-09-2025 passed in M.A. No.6/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, setting aside the Trial Court's interim injunction in O.S. No.1/2020, ought itself to be set aside (challenge in WP No.30566/2025 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution). +2 more

Court's answer

Since the parties' rights remain pending consideration before the Trial Court, the High Court held it unnecessary to adjudicate all the contentions urged in the writ petition, a detailed examination at that stage being capable of prejudicing their respective rights.

Ratio / Principle

On the rough sketch and photographs, the construction presently undertaken by the plaintiff is on the Western side of the plaintiff's house and does not appear to encroach upon the vacant land lying on the Western side of the defendants' property.

Key takeaways

The interests of both parties would be adequately protected if they are directed to maintain status quo over the land measuring 7 ft East-West and 48 ft North-South situated on the Western side of the defendants' property, i.e., behind their house.ratio¶92
W.P. No.30566/2025 (printed in the operative clause as 30566/2022) is disposed of, directing the plaintiff and the defendants to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed portion of the 'A' Schedule properties measuring 7 ft East-West x 48 ft North-South.ratio¶95

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (K. V. Aravind, J.), 06-04-2026 - Twin writ petitions (GM-CPC), WP No.30566/2025 c/w WP No.17871/2024 (NC: 2026:KHC:18712), under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, disposed of together as both arise from O.S. No.1/2020 (Prl./Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada), a neighbouring-owner dispute over a vacant strip measuring 7 ft (E-W) x 48 ft (N-S) behind the defendants' house, claimed by the plaintiff as part of Item No.2 of the 'A' Schedule and by the defendants as ventilation space. The Trial Court had granted an interim injunction on I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC on 26.03.2021 and ordered police protection on I.A. No.3 on 14.01.2022 to implement it; the appellate Court set aside the injunction on 23.09.2025 in M.A. No.6/2022, which order was impugned. Holding that detailed adjudication was unnecessary while the parties' rights pended in the suit, and on the rough sketch (Annexure-A) and photographs finding that the plaintiff's fresh construction on the Western side of her house does not appear to encroach the disputed strip, the Court directed both sides to maintain status quo over the strip, set aside the appellate order dated 23.09.2025 in M.A. No.6/2022, modified the 26.03.2021 injunction order accordingly, rendered the police-protection writ (WP No.17871/2024) infructuous, requested expeditious trial, and confined all observations to the disposal. No costs.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION No. 30566 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

C/W

WRIT PETITION No. 17871 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

IN WP No. 30566/2025

BETWEEN:

SMT. MANJULA, W/O LATE MYLARAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT BALASAMUDRA VILLAGE,

NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. KANTHAMMA, W/O LATE KURUBA BUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

RAMALINGA, S/O LATE KURUBA BUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

MAHADEVA

S/O LATE KURUBA BUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

KUMARA, S/O LATE KURUBA BUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT BALASAMUDRA VILLAGE, NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H. MUJTABA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 23-09-2025 (ANNEXURE-G) PASSED IN MA.No.6/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT PAVAGADA, AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE APPEAL.

IN WP No. 17871/2024

BETWEEN:

SMT. KANTHAMMA, W/O LATE KURUBA BUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

RAMALINGA,

S/OLATE KURUBA BUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

MAHADEV, S/O LATE KURUBA BUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

KUMAR, S/O LATE KURUBA BUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

ALL ARE R/AT BALASAMUDRA VILLAGE, VALLUR POST, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI H. MUJTABA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. MANJULA, W/O LATE MYLARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT BALASAMUDRA VILLAGE, VALLUR POST, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR C., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2022 PASSED IN OS No. 1/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PAVAGADA ON IA No. III FILED U/O 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri C. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.30566/2025, who is respondent in WP No.17871/2024 and Sri H. Mujtaba, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP No.30566/2025, who are petitioners in WP No.17871/2024.

W.P. No.30566/2025 is filed challenging the order dated 23.09.2025 in M.A. No.14/2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada (appellate Court).

W.P. No.17871/2024 is filed challenging the order dated 14.01.2022 passed on I.A. No.3 in O.S.No.1/2020, whereby police protection was directed to be provided for implementation of the order dated 26.03.2021 passed on I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”).

2.1 These writ petitions arise out of a suit in O.S. No.1/2020 between the same parties, involving interdependent issues. Hence, both petitions are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

2.2 The consideration of W.P. No.17871/2024 would depend upon the outcome of W.P. No.30566/2025. Hence, this Court proceeds to consider W.P. No.30566/2025.

The petitioner-plaintiff instituted O.S. No.1/2020 seeking a declaration that she is the owner in possession and enjoyment of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the ‘A’ Schedule properties, for a mandatory injunction directing demolition of the structure in the ‘B’ Schedule property, and for other consequential injunctive reliefs. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

3.1 The Trial Court allowed the application and restrained the defendants from interfering with or obstructing the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the ‘A’ Schedule properties. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred M.A. No.6/2022 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court set aside the order of injunction, which is impugned herein.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

Sri C. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the ‘A’ Schedule properties. It is contended that the ‘B’ Schedule property forms part of Item No.2 of the ‘A’ Schedule properties and is presently under the occupation of the defendants. Taking advantage of the fact that Item No.2 of the ‘A’ Schedule properties is vacant land, the defendants are stated to be attempting further encroachment. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the defendants are neighbouring property owners.

4.1 Learned counsel submits that the trial Court, upon consideration of the sale deeds and the measurements mentioned therein, rightly granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession. It is contended that the appellate Court, without properly appreciating the documentary evidence and while erroneously tracing title, has set aside the well-reasoned order of injunction.

4.2 It is further submitted that Item No.1 of the ‘A’ Schedule properties is an existing house measuring 36 ft. x 36 ft., and

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

the defendants' property lies to the North, measuring 45 ft.x48 ft. Behind these properties lies a vacant land, being Item No.2 of the ‘A’ Schedule properties, owned by the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendants have encroached upon a portion of the said vacant land to an extent of 7 ft. East–West and 48 ft. North–South, and had attempted further encroachment, which necessitated the institution of the present suit and the grant of an order of injunction. It is submitted that the appellate Court has set aside the order of injunction without due consideration of the aforesaid aspects.

Sri H. Mujtaba, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, submits that the defendants are the owners of land measuring 48 ft. North–South and 45 ft. East–West. It is contended that the dispute pertains to a strip of vacant land measuring 7 ft.x48 ft., which is stated to have been left for ventilation and forms part of the said property.

5.1 It is further submitted that, taking advantage of the said land being vacant, the petitioner, under the guise of the order of injunction, has encroached upon the same and has put up a wall using stone slabs. Learned counsel contends that the

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

appellate Court, upon consideration of these aspects, is justified in setting aside the order of injunction.

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

Annexure–A to the writ petition is a rough sketch relied upon by both learned counsel to explain the dispute; however, the same is not entirely accurate. In addition to the said sketch, both the counsel have also placed photographs depicting the relative position of the properties. Though larger extents are described in the schedule properties, the dispute between the parties is confined to a portion measuring 7 ft.x48 ft. The defendants contend that the plaintiff has encroached upon their land to the said extent and has put up construction thereon.

7.1 Having regard to the rough sketch and the photographs placed on record, this Court is of the view that it is unnecessary to adjudicate upon all the contentions urged in the present petition. The rights of the parties are pending consideration in the trial Court, and any detailed examination of the rival claims

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

at this stage may prejudice their respective rights and contentions.

7.2 Inasmuch as the dispute before this Court pertains to the grant of temporary injunction, which is only a tentative arrangement pending adjudication of the suit, the endeavour of this Court is to protect the interests of both parties during the pendency of the suit. On a comparative consideration of the photographs produced by both sides, the rough sketch at Annexure–A, though not wholly accurate, may be referred to for the limited purpose of disposal of this petition.

7.3 Item No.1 of the ‘A’ Schedule properties measures

36ft.x36ft. On the Eastern side, there is a road, and on the Western side lies the vacant land belonging to the plaintiff. The defendants’ property is situated to the North of the plaintiff’s property and is bounded on the East by a road, on the South by the plaintiff’s property, and on the West by the plaintiff’s vacant land. The dispute pertains to a portion of vacant land situated

on the Western side of the defendants’ property, i.e., behind their house. According to the sketch, the vacant land is on the Western side of the defendants’ property, and the present

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

dispute is confined only to an extent of 7 ft. East–West and 48

ft. North–South.

7.4 The construction presently undertaken by the plaintiff is

on the Western side of the plaintiff’s house and does not appear to encroach upon the vacant land lying on the Western side of the defendants’ property. In the considered view of this Court, the interests of both parties would be adequately protected if they are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land measuring 7 ft. East–West and 48 ft. North–South situated on the Western side of the defendants’ property, i.e., behind their house. It is also noticed that there is presently no construction by the plaintiff in the said portion.

In light of the above, the following;

Order

(i) W.P. No.30566/2022 is disposed of , directing the plaintiff and the defendants to maintain status quo in respect of the portion of land forming part of the ‘A’ Schedule properties, measuring 7 ft. East–West and 48 ft. North–South, situated on the Western side of the defendants’ property, i.e., behind the

11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18712 WP No. 30566 of 2025 C/W WP No. 17871 of 2024

HC-KAR

respondents’ house, as indicated in the rough sketch.

(ii) In light of the above directions, the order dated 23.09.2025 passed in M.A. No.6/2022 is set aside. The order dated 26.03.2021 passed in O.S. No.1/2020 on I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The trial Court is requested to expedite the trial of the suit, subject to the cooperation of both parties.

(iii) Any observations made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and shall not affect the rights of the parties, nor shall they influence the adjudication of the suit.

(iv) In the light of the order passed in WP No.30566/2025, WP No.17871/2021 is rendered infructuous.

(v) No order as to costs.

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

MV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28