Dismissed¶47

Smt. Selvi v. Sri. Markanda

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2026WP/33484/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (GM-CPC) dismissal of Article 227 petition against appellate order setting aside temporary injunction in partition suit O.S.No.196/2016; I.A.No.9 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC; unregistered relinquishment deed (Rs.40,000/-, 2003, Sy.No.33/1, 0.85 acre vs 40 cents dispute); revenue records standing in name of school; suit to be disposed within eight months; defendants barred from claiming equity if plaintiffs succeed.

What did the court decide?

As on the date of the order the revenue records stand in the name of the school; therefore the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. ¶46

Smt. Selvi Vs Sri. Markanda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court's order dated 08.09.2025 in M.A.No.01/2024, allowing the miscellaneous appeal and setting aside the Trial Court's temporary injunction order, suffers from any error or illegality.

¶34

Court's answer

¶46

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶46

Key takeaways

In the event the petitioners-plaintiffs succeed in the suit, the respondents-defendants shall not claim any equity.ratio¶48
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, and in any event not later than eight months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffs (children of respondent No.1) in a partition suit (O.S.No.196/2016, Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala), challenging the order dated 08.09.2025 in M.A.No.01/2024 by which the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala (First Appellate Court) allowed the miscellaneous appeal of respondent No.5 (Head Master, Government Higher Primary School) and set aside the Trial Court's order dated 29.01.2024 on I.A.No.9 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC) restraining further construction or repair on Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Held, dismissing the petition: as on the date of the order the revenue records stand in the name of the school; the First Appellate Court rightly allowed the appeal, and no error or illegality was found in the impugned order. The respondents contended that 0.85 acre in Sy.No.33/1 was given under an unregistered relinquishment deed for Rs.40,000/- in 2003 and a school building was constructed, while the plaintiffs contended the deed pertained only to 40 cents. The Court clarified that if the plaintiffs succeed in the suit the defendants shall not claim any equity, and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within eight months. The third plaintiff (Sri. Palaniswamy) was noted as dead without legal representatives.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15283 WP No. 33484 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 33484 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SELVI W/O RAVI, D/O MARKANDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT PADARASE VILLAGE, SOUDAPURA POST, ERODE, TAMIL NADU-638 461.

¶9

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. MANI S/O MARKANDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT PEDDANAPALYA VILLAGE, KUDLUR POST, LOKKANAHALLI HOBLI, HANUR TALUK – 571 342

¶11

SRI. PALANISWAMY S/O MARKANDA, NOTE:THIS PERSON WHO IS THE 3^RD PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND 4^TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT, NOW IS DEAD AND HE DO NOT HAVE ANY LRS.

¶12

SMT. LAKSHMI W/O VENKATESH, D/O MARKANDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NALLUR VILLAGE, MARTALLI, HANUR TALUK – 571 342.

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15283 WP No. 33484 of 2025

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

SRI. DEVA

¶16

S/O MARKANDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT PEDDANAPALYA VILLAGE, KUDLUR POST, LOKKANAHALLI HOBLI, HANUR TALUK – 571 342.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SMT. P. C. SUNITHA., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. MARKANDA

¶21

S/O LATE PONNUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT PEDDANAPALYA VILLAGE, KUDLUR POST, LOKKANAHALLI HOBLI, HANURU TALUK – 571 342.

¶22

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶23

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, CHAMARAJANAGARA,

¶24

CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440.

¶25

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, HANUR TOWN AND TALUK- 571 439.

¶26

HEAD MASTER GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PEDDANAPALYA VILLAGE, RAMAPURA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK (OLD), HANURU TALUK – 571 342.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. S. A. AHMED, AAG A/W SMT. HEMALATHA V., AGA FOR R2 TO R5)

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15283 WP No. 33484 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN M. A. NO.01/2024 FROM THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF ON 08-09-2025 AND ETC.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

In this writ petition, the petitioners–plaintiffs have called in question the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala (hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate Court”), in M.A.No.01/2024, whereby the said miscellaneous appeal has been allowed and the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.196/2016 has been set aside.

¶35

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶36

The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Along with the plaint, they filed

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15283 WP No. 33484 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

I.A.No.9 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with

¶40

Section 151 of the CPC seeking a temporary injunction restraining defendant No.5 from carrying out any repair or putting up further construction over Item No.1 of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The Trial Court, by order dated 29.01.2024, granted a temporary injunction restraining respondent No.5 from putting up any further construction or carrying out repair work on Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 filed a miscellaneous appeal. The First Appellate Court, by the impugned order dated 08.09.2025, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

¶41

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that land measuring 0.85 acre in Sy.No.33/1 was given by the petitioners’ father i.e. defendant No.1 under an unregistered relinquishment deed for consideration of Rs.40,000/- in

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15283 WP No. 33484 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the year 2003, and from that date, the respondents have been in possession and have constructed a school building thereon.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners– plaintiffs submits that the unregistered relinquishment deed pertains only to 40 cents and not 85 cents.

¶46

Be that as it may, as on this date, the revenue records stand in the name of the school. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. This Court finds no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶47