DAY,

THE

COURT

PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The Defendants have preferred the present writ

petition assailing the order dated 04/11/2017, in

M.A.Nos.26/2017 and 27/2017, on the file of the Addl.

Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Sagar, (hereinafter

referred to as "the trial Court" for the sake of

convenience),

whereby miscellaneous applications

filed by the plaintiff were allowed, consequently,

I.A.No.5 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX

Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

- 3 -

("CPC") was dismissed with costs and I.A.No.1 filed by

the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC

in O.S.No.3/2017 was allowed.

The parties herein are referred to as per

their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

The suit in O.S.No.3/2017 for a permanent

injunction against the defendants contending that

plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and

enjoyment of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No.49

(Old No.30) measuring 2 acres 8 guntas of land

situated

at

Kasagundi

Village,

Kerehalli

Hobli,

Hosanagara Taluk. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff

applied I.A.No.1 seeking a temporary injunction

restraining the defendants from interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property.

- 4 -

Pursuant to the summons issued by the

trial Court, the defendants appeared and filed their

written

statement

and

counterclaim

seeking

a

declaration

that

defendant

No.2/petitioner

No.2

Savithri @ Savithramma herein has become the

absolute owner by the Will

dated 02/06/1998

executed by late Smt. Gangamma wife of Sidda Naika

and also sought a permanent injunction contending

that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property. The defendants filed their

objections to the temporary injunction and filed a

separate application I.A.No.5 seeking an injunction

restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property.

5.

The trial Court while directing the order of

status quo believed that the genuineness of the

documents produced by either party cannot be

- 5 -

decided without holding a trial and in the interest of

both sides, parties were directed to maintain the

status quo.

6.

The

plaintiff

being

unhappy

directing

parties

to

maintain

status-quo,

preferred

Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.26 and 27 of 2017. The

first appellate Court arrived at a finding that the

plaintiff has established a prima-facie case and that as

trial Court failed to mention specifically what is status-

quo

order

and

rejected

I.A.No.5

filed

by

the

defendants under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and

consequently allowed MA Nos.26/2017 and 27/2017

by allowing I.A.No.1 filed by plaintiff under Order 39

Rules 1 and 2. Hence, this petition by the defendants.

7.

Heard learned counsel for the parties to the

lis and perused the material evidence on record.

- 6 -

8.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners/

defendants, Sri Harish Kumar M.S. would contend that

suit filed by the plaintiff is for a permanent injunction

based on the alleged registered Sale Deed dated

23/08/2016 executed by Nagarathna alleging to be

the daughter of Gangamma. It is contended by the

learned counsel that the defendants have disputed the

title of Nagarathna in the written statement and that

Nagarathna is the daughter of Gangamma, further

contended that the said Gangamma had bequeathed

the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2

Savithri by Will dated 02/06/1998 and on the death of

Gangamma on 12/08/2018, the name of defendant

No.2 and her family members were entered in the

revenue records as absolute owners and would

contend that by way of counterclaim defendants have

disputed the title of the plaintiff based on alleged Sale

Deed stating these facts, the learned counsel would

- 7 -

contend that conclusion arrived by the trial Court to

grant an order of status-quo was because of these

disputed facts, which would require full fledge trial and

sought to allow the petit