This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

21.10.2021 passed in M.A.No.6/2019 by the I Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Gokak.

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ

petition are as under:

The petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate

possession in O.S.No.44/2018 against the respondents. In

the said suit, respondent Nos.1 &2 appeared and filed their

written statements denying all the averments made in the

plaint. In the said suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed

application in I.A.No.I seeking temporary injunction

restraining respondent Nos.1 & 2 from alienating the suit

schedule property in favour of respondent Nos.3 & 4. The

- 3 -

said application was opposed by respondents-defendants

by filing objections. The Trial allowed the said application

vide order dated 25.01.2021.

During pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.1 & 2

have sold the suit property in favour of respondent No.3 &

4. The petitioner filed I.A.No.III seeking an order of

temporary injunction against the respondents not to make

any changes in the record of rights in respect of suit

schedule property. In support of his application, the

petitioner has filed an affidavit contending that respondent

Nos.1 & 2 in order to deprive the legitimate right of the

petitioner has sold the suit schedule property bearing

R.S.No.519/3 (Old R.S.No.519/2A+2B) to an extent of 1

acre 20 guntas and 12 annas, out of it, 5 guntas in favour

of respondent No.3 & 4. Respondent Nos.3 & 4 are trying

to alienate the suit schedule property. Hence, he prayed to

issue an order of temporary injunction.

The Trial Court vide order dated 11.11.2019

allowed the said application filed by the petitioner.

- 4 -

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.III

dated 11.11.2019 preferred appeal in M.A.No.6/2019. The

Appellate Court after considering the material on record

allowed the appeal and consequently set aside the order

on I.A.No.III passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the

application. Hence, this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

the Appellate Court while deciding the miscellaneous

appeal has recorded a finding on the merits of the case.

Further, in order to buttress his arguments, he has placed

reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri

Basappa Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur and

others reported in 2006 (3) KCCR 1757 wherein, when

the civil suit is pending, revenue courts should not

interfere. He submit that, the said fact was not considered

by the Appellate Court. Hence, on these grounds he prays

to allow the writ petition.

- 5 -

6.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.1 & 2, supports the impugned order.

7.

Heard and perused the records and considered

the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

8.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a

suit

for

partition

and

separate

possession

against

respondent Nos.1 & 2. In the said suit, the petitioner filed

application in I.A.No.I seeking an order of temporary

injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 & 2 not to alienate

the suit schedule property. The said application came to be

allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 25.01.2021.

In-spite of an injunction order, respondent Nos.1 & 2 have

alienated

the

suit

schedule

property

in

favour

of

respondent Nos.3 & 4 during pendency of suit. Now

respondent Nos.3 & 4 are trying to change the entries

based on the registered sale deed executed by respondent

Nos.1 & 2. The registered sale deed executed by

respondent Nos.1 & 2 in favour of respondent Nos.3 & 4 is

hit by doctrine of lispendency. Further co-ordinate Bench

- 6 -

of this Court in Sri Basappa9s case (supra), has held as

under:

<When the property is in the joint name of

the coparceners and the suit for partition is

pending, the purchase of property by one of the

coparceners during the pendency of such suit for

partition is not permissible