Karnataka High Court
WP/29088/2026 of SRI RAVISHEKAR Vs SRI PUTTASWAMY @ PUTTASWAMAIAH on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010631842026 NC: 2026:KHC:52635 WP No. 29088 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 29088 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAVISHEKAR SON OF LATE BAJJEGOWDA, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 29088 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI RAVISHEKAR
SON OF LATE BAJJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KICHAVADI VILLAGE,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE 572 130.
2.
SMT. SAVITHA,
WIFE OF RAVISHEKAR,
DAUGHTER OF LAKSHMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KICHAVADI VILLAGE,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE 572 130.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI PUTTASWAMY @ PUTTASWAMAIAH
SON OF LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT KICHAVADI VILLAGE
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI. KUNIGAL TALUK,
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
TUMAKURU DISTRICT, PINCODE 572 130.
2.
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE K.C. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KICHAVADI VILLAGE,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT PINCODE 572 130.
3.
SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE GURURAJA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KICHAVADI VILLAGE,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
PINCODE - 572 130.
4.
SRI. CHANNEGOWDA,
SON OF LATE GURURAJA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KICHAVADI VILLAGE,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
PINCODE 572130.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KUMUDARANI K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
01.07.2026 PASSED IN M.A.NO.32/2024 BY THE LEARNED
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL AS
PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC,.
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed impugning the concurrent findings recorded in O.S.No.157/2023, vide order dated 03.08.2024, and in M.A.No.32/2024, vide order dated 01.07.2026.
2. The plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.157/2023 seeking a decree of permanent injunction. In the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be filed. The Trial Court, by order dated 03.08.2024, allowed the said application and granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court.
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants submits that the plaintiffs claim right over the schedule property on the basis of a sale deed of the year 1966 and the revenue entries. It is submitted that the claim of the defendants is based on the records of the Land Tribunal, which indicate the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule properties. It is further submitted that the First Appellate Court has exceeded the scope of the appeal while confirming the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court.
4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. The Trial Court, while considering the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by order dated 03.08.2024, has referred to the sale deeds of the year 1966, the partition deed dated 12.12.2016, and the revenue entries, and has prima facie held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property.
HC-KAR
6. The defendants have asserted possession over the suit schedule property on the basis of the grants made by the Land Tribunal in respect of the survey number. The Court below has noted that the documents pertaining to the Land Tribunal were not legible and that nothing could be made out from the said documents. Moreover, the claim of the plaintiffs is based on registered sale deeds and the subsequent partition deed, which are corroborated by the revenue entries carrying a statutory presumption.
7. The Trial Court, being satisfied as to the existence of a prima facie case, has granted an order of injunction. It is well settled that, while considering the existence of a prima facie case, the evidence need not be conclusively established. Any contention regarding the rights claimed by the petitioners or the defence raised by them can be considered in the course of the trial.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the impugned order.
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16