Smt Nagarathnamma Vs Sri Siddalingaswamy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt Nagarathnamma Vs Sri Siddalingaswamy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of on joint submission: (i) Trial Court (Civil Judge & JMFC, Channapatna) to dispose of O.S. No. 508/2024 expeditiously, uninfluenced by the findings/observations of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in the impugned orders; (ii) petitioner permitted to complete construction on the suit schedule property without prejudice to either party, expressly barred from claiming equities thereon, subject to the final outcome of the suit. The validity of the impugned interim orders/I.A. No.1 itself was left to be worked out in the suit.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 should be allowed — calling for records in O.S. No. 508/2024 (Civil Judge & JMFC, Channapatna) and M.A. No. 2/2025 (Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channapatna), quashing the impugned orders dated 19/02/2025 (Annexure-H) and 20/01/2025 (Annexure-E), and consequently dismissing I.A. No.1 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC. +1 more

Court's answer

On the joint submission of counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, the petition is disposed of: the Trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S. No. 508/2024 as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the impugned orders.

Ratio / Principle

Any construction put up or to be put up by the petitioner in the suit schedule property shall be without any prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties; the petitioner shall not claim any equities in respect of such construction, and it shall abide by the final outcome of the suit before the Trial Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. — W.P. No. 6415 of 2025 (GM-CPC), decided 19.01.2026. Smt. Nagarathnamma, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, sought quashing of the order dated 19/02/2025 in M.A. No. 2/2025 (Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channapatna, Annexure-H) and the order dated 20/01/2025 in O.S. No. 508/2024 (Civil Judge & JMFC, Channapatna, Annexure-E), and dismissal of the respondents'/plaintiffs' I.A. No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC, which had restrained her construction on the suit schedule property at Saraguru Village, Channapatna Taluk. Earlier, on joint-submission-driven interim orders of 20.03.2025 and 12.08.2025 she had been allowed to build, conditional on no equity claim if unsuccessful before the Trial Court; construction was completed. On the joint submission of both sides, the petition was disposed of: the Trial Court to decide the suit on merits, expeditiously and uninfluenced by the findings and observations in the impugned orders; the construction to stand without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties, the petitioner claiming no equities, all subject to the final outcome of the suit. No precedent was engaged with; the merits of the interim injunction were left to the Trial Court.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Two impugned orders challenged together: (i) order dated 19/02/2025 in M.A. No. 2/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Channapatna (Annexure-H); (ii) order dated 20/01/2025 in O.S. No. 508/2024 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Channapatna (Annexure-E). Petitioner prayed they be quashed and I.A. No.1 (interim relief of respondents/plaintiffs) dismissed.¶25
Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Channapatna; Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Channapatna · 19/02/2025 and 20/01/2025
Prior proceeding
Trial Court stage: O.S. No. 508/2024 pending before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Channapatna; the trial court order dated 20/01/2025 (Annexure-E) is one of the impugned orders; per interim-order narrative, in view of the impugned trial court order the petitioner could not proceed further with construction (¶40).¶25
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court stage: M.A. No. 2/2025 before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channapatna; its order dated 19/02/2025 (Annexure-H) is the other impugned order; the final directions refer to findings and observations of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court (¶64).¶64
Prior proceeding
Interim order of this Court dated 20.03.2025: notice issued to respondents and petitioner permitted to put up construction on the suit schedule property, subject to the condition that if unsuccessful before the Trial Court she shall not claim any equity on the construction (¶¶37–41).¶41
Prior proceeding
Interim order of this Court dated 12.08.2025: noted that pursuant to the 20.03.2025 order the construction is complete; the application seeking vacation of the interim order to be heard along with the main matter; matter listed after eight weeks; interim order extended till the next hearing (¶¶42–56).¶54
Prior proceeding
Joint submission before final disposal: learned counsel for petitioner and respondents jointly submitted that the petition be disposed of by directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law, with any construction put up/to be put up by the petitioner over the suit schedule property subject to the final outcome of the suit and without any equity claim; the submission was placed on record (¶¶57–62).¶61