IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.6193/2019 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
1. K.R.RANGASWAMY S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O KANCHAGHATTA KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-577201 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI G.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.] AND:
1. B.S.PRABHUDEV S/O LATE K.B.SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. B.S.LINGARAJU S/O LATE K.B.SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 3. B.S.NATARAJU S/O LATE K.B.SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESPONDENT No.1 TO 3 ARE R/O RAMAMANDIRA ROAD, TIPTUR TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201.
4. K.R.VASANTHAKUMAR S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, KANCHAGHATTA, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-577201 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.06.2018 PASSED BY LEARNED SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR DISMISSING M.A.No.8/2017 [ANENXURE-E] AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2017 OF THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR ALLOWING IA-2 IN OS.NO.57/2017 [ANNEXURE-D].
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur in M.A.No.8/2017, whereby the order dated 23.09.2017 of the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur allowing I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.57/2017 has been confirmed.
2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.57/2017 against the petitioners and respondent No.4 herein, seeking for permanent injunction contending that they have acquired the right, title and interest over the suit property through the registered sale deeds executed by their vendor.
3. In the said proceedings, I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiffs seeking for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with their peaceful possession of the property has been allowed and the same has been confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel Sri. G.S. Prasanna Kumar appearing for the petitioners would submit that the application filed by the petitioners seeking occupancy rights before the competent Land Tribunal is pending consideration and during the pendency of the said proceedings, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have purchased the suit property and are claiming the rights and title over the same. However, the possession of the suit property being with the petitioners herein which could be depicted by the photographs placed on record, it was obligatory on the part of the Trial Court to consider the same inasmuch as deciding the application – I.A.No.2.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
6. The material available on record prima-facie indicates that the plaintiffs are entitled to temporary injunction as sought for, in view of the documentary evidence placed on record. Considering this vital aspect of the registered sale deed and the revenue entries showing the name of the plaintiffs as the owner in possession of the suit property, the Trial Court allowed the I.A.No.2 which has been rightly confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. In the absence of any cogent material placed on record to establish the possession of the petitioners, merely on the basis of photographs possession cannot be determined.
7. Concurrent findings of both the Courts below do not call for interference by this Court. No jurisdictional error is found in the order impugned.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR