Disposed

Smt. Padmavathamma, v. Sri R Manohar

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2026WP/32626/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs in a suit to cancel a sale deed challenged appellate orders upholding restraint on alienation but rejecting their injunction against interference. The High Court modified the appellate order directing both parties to maintain status quo on possession till disposal of the suit.

What did the court decide?

Appellate order modified: parties to maintain status quo on possession till suit disposal; suit to be disposed of expeditiously.

Smt. Padmavathamma, Vs Sri R Manohar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:13397 WP No. 32626 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30860 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 32626 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 30860 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶9

IN WP No. 32626/2024

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O LATE SRI R SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶12

SRI THYAGARAJ S/O LATE SRI R SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶13

SMT RAMBA

¶14

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶15

D/O LATE SRI R SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶16

SRI S VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE SRI R SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.6-720 NARAYANA NAGARA VENKATAGIRI KOTE CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517424

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N V., ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:13397 WP No. 32626 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30860 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI R MANOHAR S/O SRI RAMASWAMY WADAYAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶24

SRI M MOHAN KUMAR S/O SRI R MANOHAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R1 AND R2 ARE R/AT DASARLAPALLI VILLAGE V KOTE POST, MANDALAM CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517424.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHESHADRI N S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WP AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING COMMON ORDER DATED 13/09/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC AT KGF, IN MA NO. 7/2023 AND MA No:31/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A IN ALLOWING MA NO. 7/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS - DEFENDANTS UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 10/01/2023 PASSED IN OS NO. 141/2021 BY THE HONBLE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF, AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

¶27

IN WP NO. 30860/2024

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O LATE SRI R SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶30

SRI THYAGARAJ S/O LATE SRI R SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶31

SMT RAMBA

¶32

D/O LATE SRI R SUBBARAYAPPA

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13397 WP No. 32626 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30860 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶36

SRI S VIJAY KUMAR

¶37

S/O LATE SRI R SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.6-720 NARAYANA NAGARA VENKATAGIRI KOTE CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517424

¶38

…PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N V., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

SRI R MANOHAR

¶42

S/O SRI RAMASWAMY WADAYAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶43

SRI M MOHAN KUMAR S/O SRI R MANOHAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R1 AND R2 ARE R/AT DASARLAPALLI VILLAGE V KOTE POST, MANDALAM CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517424.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHESHADRI N S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WP. AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING COMMON ORDER DATED 13/09/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC AT KGF, IN MA NO. 7/2023 AND MA 31/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A IN DISMISSING MA NO. 31/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 17/04/2023 PASSED IN OS NO. 141/2021 BY THE HONBLE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF, AT ANNEXURE-L REJECTING IA NO.V AND ETC.

¶46

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

¶47

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13397 WP No. 32626 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30860 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

These writ petitions are filed by the plaintiffs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the common order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC at KGF in M.A. Nos.7/2023 and 31/2023.

¶52

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per rankings before the trial court.

¶53

The plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 26.03.2021. Along with the plaint, they have filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code—IA No. 1 to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property and IA No. 5 to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

¶54

The trial court allowed IA No.1 and dismissed IA No.5. Being aggrieved by the allowing of IA No.1, the

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13397 WP No. 32626 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30860 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

respondents/defendants filed M.A.No.7/2023. Aggrieved by the rejection of IA No.5, the plaintiffs filed M.A.No. 31/2023 before the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, KGF.

¶58

The I Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/defendants in M.A.No.7/2023 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in M.A.No.31/2023. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the I Appellate Court, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

¶59

The suit is for cancellation of the sale deed. The trial court, after considering the materials available on record, has rightly passed an order on IA No.1 directing the defendants not to alienate the suit schedule property. Insofar as IA No.5 filed by the plaintiffs seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property is concerned, in the interest of justice, the parties be directed to maintain

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13397 WP No. 32626 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30860 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

status quo in respect of possession of the property till the disposal of the suit.

¶63

In view of the above, the following order is passed:

¶64

(i) The writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶65

(ii) The order passed by the I Appellate Court in M.A. Nos.7/2023 and 31/2023 dated 13.09.2024 stands modified to the effect that the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of possession of the property till the disposal of the suit.

¶66

(iii) The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶67

(iv) The parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal.

¶68

(v) In view of the disposal of the main matter, all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶69

CMList No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

¶70

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

Smt. Padmavathamma, v. Sri R Manohar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Padmavathamma, v. Sri R Manohar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Ballakur Vs Mrs. K Nagarathna

Smt Meenakshi Vs Sri M S Shankar

Smt Nagarathnamma @ Rathnamma Vs Smt Tholasamma

Sri. M Malaiah Vs Sri. H Vrushabendrappa

M/S. Rohm Clamping Technologies Private Limited Vs M/S. Rohm Gmbh

B.N.Srinivasa Murthy Vs Smt. Vijayalakshmi Satyakumar