Karnataka High Court
WP/24180/2026 of SMT MAMATHA Vs SMT GOWRAMMA on 29 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010517872026 NC: 2026:KHC:47111 WP No. 24180 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24180 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT MAMATHA W/O KALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 24180 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT MAMATHA
W/O KALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.84, JANTHA QARTERS,
ONNAPAMNAHALLI,
BETTAHALSOOR,
BENGALURU - 562 157
2.
SMT.LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O ADINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT VEDALALVENI VILLAGE,
GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 213
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAMESHA T.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
1.
SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O NAEASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT DASSAGANAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 562 162
2.
SMT. NARASAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNINARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT KONGHATTA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 562 163
3.
SMT. SHASHIKALA,
D/O LATE VENKATAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
4.
SMT.MUNIYAMMA,
D/O LATE VENKATAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
5.
SRI.NARASIMHAMURTHY,
S/O LATE LATE VENKATAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE
R/AT KACHERIPALYA,
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN - 561 203
6.
SRI. RAJANNA,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT KONGHATTA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK - 562 163
7.
SRI. MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE NAGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
8.
SRI.NARASIMHAMURTHY,
S/O LATE NAGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 ARE
R/AT KACHERIPALYA,
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN - 561 203
9.
SMT. AKKAYAMMA,
D/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT KONGHATTA VILLAGE,
HC-KAR
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 562 163
10.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KIADB,
OFFICE ADDRESS NO.2 (BICP) AND
BENGALURU RURAL, NO. 14/3
CFC BUILDING,
MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN,
1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PUTTASWAMY M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6
NOTICE TO R1 TO R5 AND R7 TO R9 ARE
DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 29.08.2026
NOTICE TO R10 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE
ORDER DATED 29.08.2026)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 15.07.2026 PASSED IN R.A.NO.10037/2026, BY THE
HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SITTING AT DODABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ON IA NO. 3/2026, BY DISMISSING THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
HC-KAR
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
Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. No.3 in R.A. No.10037/2026 dated 15.07.2026 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, sitting at Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, the petitioners/appellants are before this Court.
2. The petitioners have filed a suit for partition. In the said suit, I.A. No.3 was filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, which came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal, i.e., R.A. No.10037/2026. During the pendency of the appeal, they have filed I.A. No.II seeking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the authorities from disbursing the amount. The order of injunction was granted later, when they came to know that the said amount had already been disbursed. Now, the present application is filed seeking a direction to respondent No.6 to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,06,25,000/- before the Court. The same came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
HC-KAR
3. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph No.17 of the impugned order, where it is observed that the plaint was rejected. A right accrued on the part of respondent No.6. But now the appellants have to establish that they are having any right over the property. Apart from trial court judgment, appellants have not produced any materials. It is submitted that, now that the R.A. is pending against the order passed on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the observations made by the Court cannot be sustained.
4. This Court, having heard the learned Senior Counsel and perused the material on record, is of the view that the finding of the Court rejecting the application filed by the appellants-plaintiff does not warrant any interference by this Court. As far as the observations with regard to the rejection of the plaint, namely, that rights have accrued in favour of respondent No.6 and that the appellants have to establish that they have a right over the property, are concerned, the same shall be considered in the pending appeal.
HC-KAR
5. This Court has perused the order. The observations of the Court emanate from the observations made by the Court in the order passed on the application seeking rejection of the plaint. Observation at paragraph No.17, shall not come in the way of the appellants/petitioners in deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the Trial Court, shall consider the application independently as expeditiously as possible.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
ii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5