Karnataka High Court
WP/3489/2023 of SMT SAVITRAMMA Vs SRI YOGEESH on 31 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010079602023 NC: 2026:KHC:47243 W.P. No.3489/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3489/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVITRAMMA WIFE OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.3489/2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. SAVITRAMMA
WIFE OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/AT PENNASAMUDRA VILLAGE
UBRANI HOBLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.
2.
SRI. PRAKASH G.S.
SON OF LATE SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT PENNASAMUDRA VILLAGE
UBRANI HOBLI
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. NAVYASHREE, ADV., FOR
SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M. ADV.,)
AND:
SRI. YOGEESH
SON OF LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT PENNASAMUDRA VILLAGE
UBRANI HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G. ADV.,)
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN OS.NO.93/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI. ORDER TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.11.2020 PASSED IN
OS.NO.93/2020 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, CHANNAGIRI IN DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 AS PER
ANNEXURE-E, FURTHER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 05.11.2022 PASSED IN MA NO.19/2020 BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI AS
PER ANNEXURE-G AND THEREBY ORDER TO ALLOW IA NO.1
FILED IN OS.NO.93/2020 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT
PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
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 writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2020 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.93/2020 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, (for short, ‘the trial Court’) and the order dated 05.11.2022 passed in M.A.No.19/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Channagiri (for short, ‘the appellate Court’).
2. Heard Smt.Navyashree, learned counsel for Sri.Siddamallappa P.M., learned counsel appearing for the
HC-KAR
petitioner; Sri.Kumara K.G., learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record.
3. Petitioners-plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.93/2020 for declaration that the plaintiffs are the joint owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction, the said application came to be rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, the said order was challenged before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.19/2020 and the appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by recording the finding that the construction alleged in the application is already completed. The said orders are challenged in this petition.
4. It is to be noticed that, in the schedule to the application, the plaintiffs are making assertion that in 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.11/1, which is a karab, the
HC-KAR
respondent-defendant is putting up the construction and the said property should be declared as plaintiffs’ property. Be that as it may, the appellate Court at paragraph No.16 had made observation that the construction of Khenimane has already completed and dismissed the appeal. I do not find any good grounds to interfere with the orders under challenge as the finding is that the construction is already completed and the prayer in the application for temporary injunction is for not to put up the construction. The relief sought in the suit is for declaration and the trial Court shall consider the said relief on merits without being influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned orders in this petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32