Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25660
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6138
WP No. 105255 of 2023 (GM-CPC)
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
BETWEEN:
RAYAPPA S/O. HALAPPA GONDE,
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. LEGAL PRACTIONER/AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KHAIRWADI, RAIBAG RURAL-590001,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BALAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA PUJARI,
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KHAIRWADI, RAIBAG RURAL-590001,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE TAHASHILDAR,
RAIBAG-591317,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. T. HANAMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R2 AND R3)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shriharsh A. Neelopant
For the Respondents: K. Anandkumar, T. Hanamareddy
The court possesses inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunctions to meet the ends of justice, even if circumstances do not strictly fall under Order 39, to prevent parties from taking undue advantage of disputed documents pending a full trial.
Headnote:(A) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 13(3) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 94, 151 - Order 39 Rules 1, 2 - Temporary Injunction - Inherent powers of the court - The court has inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunctions under Section 151 to meet the ends of justice even where circumstances are not explicitly covered by Order 39 of the Code. (Para 9)
(B) Appeals - Scope of appellate interference - An appellate court should not interfere with an order granting temporary injunction when the trial court has correctly exercised its inherent powers, especially when issues of fact, such as the date of death of an ancestor, require a full trial and not a mini-trial at the interlocutory stage. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a declaration that a death certificate obtained by the respondent was void, alleging that the respondent manipulated court orders to show his ancestor died in 1946 to defeat a registered sale deed executed in 1947 by the same ancestor. The petitioner sought an injunction to prevent the respondent from relying on this death certificate pending suit. The trial court initially granted the injunction, but the first appellate court reversed this decision.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the appellate court failed to recognize that the petitioner’s claim of fraud required a trial. The court emphasized that it should not conduct a mini-trial at the interlocutory stage and that temporary injunctions are necessary when the interests of justice are at stake, particularly when a party is using a disputed document to gain an unfair advantage in ongoing litigation.
Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in dismissing the temporary injunction and whether the trial court correctly exercised its inherent powers to grant the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts possess inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to grant interim relief where necessary for justice, even outside the specific provisions of Order 39, and such power should be preserved to prevent misuse of disputed documents during trial.
Result: Writ petition allowed; trial court injunction order restored.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.06.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG IN M.A. NO.02/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2022 IN O.S NO.521/2019 BY THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag in M.A.No.2 of 2022 vide Annexure A.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows.
3. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.521/2019 against the respondents for the relief of declaration that the death certificate of Balappa s/o Kenchappa Pujari obtained by respondent No.1 is illegal void and sought for a consequential relief of necessary direction to the Tahasildar, Raibag to cancel the entry of death of Balappa s/o Kenchappa Pujari dated 09.04.2018 by contending that the grandfather of respondent No.1 had sold the property in favour of grandmother and great grandmother of petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 02.04.1947. Respondent No.1 and his brothers have instituted a suit in O.S.No.820/2017 seeking a declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of inheritance and contented that their grandfather expired in 1946. To substantiate their case, they have illegally obtained direction from the civil court in Crl.Misc.No.627/2017, that their grandfather Balappa s/o of Kenchappa Pujari passed away on 07.09.1946 without issuing a notice to the petitioner and without publishing the notice in the newspaper having a wide circulation.
4. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.2 seeking an order of temporary injunction against respondent No.1 from producing or relying upon the death certificate of Balappa s/o Kenchappa Pujari in O.S.No.820/2017 or in any other proceedings. Respondent No.1 filed objections to I.A.No.2. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner wide order dated 03.01.2022. Respondent No.1 aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.521/2019 preferred an appeal in M.A.No.2/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag. The first appellate court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the appeal, and set aside the order passed by the trial court on I.A.No.2, and consequently, dismissed I.A.No.2. The petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal vide judgment dated 23.06.2023 passed in M.A.No.2/222 filed this writ petition.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, and learned AGA for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the grandfather of respondent No.1 died in 1962 by suppressing the date of death of grandfather and filed petition in a Crl.Misc.No.627/2017. The said criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed only with an intention to demonstrate that as of the date of execution of a registered sale deed, the grandfather of respondent No.1 was no more to defeat the registered sale deed. He submits that the criminal miscellaneous petition was filed after 76 years after the death of the deceased grandfather only to deprive the rights of the petitioner by virtue of a registered sale deed executed by grandfather of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 taking undue advantage of the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.627/2017 is misusing the same. He also submitted that the said document is a disputed document and respondent No.1 cannot take advantage of the said order
