IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO. 12933 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. H.A.VIJAYA, S/O LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA, W/O LATE H.C. SRINIVASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. H.K. SRINIVASAGOWDA, S/O LATE MESTRIKARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS PETITIONERS NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT HONNANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA- 571 401.
… PETITIONERS (BY MRS. ANUSHA NANDISH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI. SHANKAREGOWDA ALIAS SHANKARA, S/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAVIGOWDA, S/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4. SRI. GURU H, S/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 5. SRI. PANCHALINGA H S, S/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE THE LR’S OF LATE SRI SHIVALINGEGOWDA ALL RESIDING AT HONNANAYAKANAHALLY VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA – 571 401.
6. SRI. H P RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA, LATE PANCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA – 571 401.
7. SRI. H K OMPRAKASH, S/O LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 8. SRI. H K RAMALINGEGOWDA, S/O LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 9. SRI. GURURAJ, S/O LATE SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 7 TO 9, ALL RESIDING AT HONNANAYAKANAHALLY VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA – 571 401.
(NOTE: THE RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9 WERE IMPLEADED AS PARTIES TO THE ABOVE SUIT RECENTLY, SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSING OF JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2019 IN M.A. NO.4/2017, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE BEEN MADE FORMAL PARTIES TO THIS WRIT PETITION) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINICPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANDYA IN M.A.NO.4/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The unsuccessful defendant filed the present writ petition against the order dated 01.02.2019 passed in M.A.No.4/2017 dismissing the appeal confirming the order dated 04.03.2017 passed by the trial Court in I.A.1 in O.S.104/2016 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mandya granting Temporary injunction.
2. The respondents 1 to 5 who were the plaintiffs before the trial Court filed suit for the relief of declaration in respect of ‘A’ schedule land bearing Sy.N.79/1 to an extent of 0.14 guntas, Sy.No.79/2 to an extent of 0.25 guntas and 79/3 to an extent of one acre and total extent of two acres of garden land situated at Honnayakanahalli village morefully described in the schedule to the plaint, contending that they are the owners of the properties in question.
3. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments and stated that they are the owners of the suit schedule property in question and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. The plaintiff filed application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants filed objections contending that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. The trial Court considering the application and objections, by an order dated 04.03.2017 allowed the application and granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servant or anybody on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. On an appeal filed by the defendants, the Appellant Court by impugned order dated 01.02.2019 dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal confirming the order passed in I.A. No.1 in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Smt. Anusha Nandish, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants vehemently contended that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below granting injunction is without any basis and are liable to be quashed. She further contended that though the documents are produced along with the appeal filed in I.A.No.1, the appellate Court has not at all considered the said document and proceeded to grant injunction. She further contended that the grant made in favour of the mother of the plaintiffs was cancelled, the Court below has not considered the written statement and the material produced before the appellate court. She further contended that the documents produced as per Annexure-G & H before this Court clearly indicates the defendants are owners of the suit schedule property but the same has not been considered. Therefore she has sought to allow the writ petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is a specific case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the suit schedule properties morefully described in the schedule and on the application filed by the plaintiffs, the trial Court has recorded a finding that to prove the prima facie case, the plaintiff has produced RTC extracts in respect of suit schedule property, grand Certificate, copy of mutation register, sketch relating to the suit schedule property, Akarband, etc. On the other hand the defendant has produced copy of the order of Assistant Commissioner, Mandya in R.A.No.2/2016 as per which the appeal filed by the defendants came to be dismissed. On going through the documents produced by the plaintiffs and the defendants, it is clear that the plaintiffs have produced sufficient documents in support of their prima facie possession over the suit schedule property. On the other hand the defendants failed to produce any documents in support of their contention. Moreover it is the specific contention of the defendants that the grant made in favour of mother of plaintiffs was cancelled. But the defendants have not produced any documents to show that the grant was cancelled. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiffs has made out prima facie case to grant temporary injunction.
8. On reconsideration, the lower court considering the application filed by the present petitioners in I.A.No.3 and the documents recorded a finding agreeing with the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs have made out a case for Temporary injunction and the defendants failed to produce any documents in support of their case. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court seeking for stay of the order made as per Annexure-G, H & J. A careful perusal of the said documents clearly indicates they are in possession of land measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.31 and does not pertains to property morefully described in the schedule to the plaint.
9. Both the courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and are entitled for temporary injunction based on the pleadings and material documents produced and the defendants have not produced any documents to prove their case. Such a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/