1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

WRIT PETITION No.203326/2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

01.

MOHAMMED MAQBUL SAB

S/O: BAUDDIN SAB

AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: WELDER

R/O: WELDER SHOP

SIRWAR - RAICHUR MAIN ROAD - 586 101.

02.

MOHAMMED VALI

S/O: SAALLEMM SAB

AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: IMAM

JAMAI MASJID SIRWAR

RAICHUR - 586 101.

... PETITIONERS

(SRI. G. G. CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR P1

SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR P2)

AND:

01.

P. VENKATESHWAR REDDY

S/O: LATE EASHWAR REDDY

AGE: 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

2

02.

P. V. KRISHNA REDDY

S/O: LATE EASHWAR REDDY

AGE: 53 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

BOTH RESIDENT OF

H.NO.12-7-177/2

NEAR HINDI VARDHAMAN SCHOOL

GOSHALA ROAD,

RAICHUR-586 101. ... RESPONDENTS

(SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950

PRAYING

TO

(A)

CALL

FOR

THE

RECORDS

IN

O.S.NO.291/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL

JUDGE AT RAICHUR AND (B) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ANY

OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER

IMPUGNED DATED 13.06.2017 ANNEXURE-G PASSED IN

M.A.NO.4/2017 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY TO SET ASIDE

THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.I IN O.S.NO.291/2016

FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 CPC, PASSED

BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AT RAICHUR DATED

11.01.2017 AS AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

3

ORDER

This

writ petition

is

filed

by

the

petitioners

herein/defendants in O.S.No.291/2016 challenging the

order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Trial Court granting

an

order

of

temporary

injunction

restraining

the

defendants from interfering with the possession of the

plaintiffs in the suit property. The petitioners have also

challenged the order dated 13.06.2017 passed by the First

Appellate Court in M.A.No.4/2017.

02.

The

respondents

herein/plaintiffs

filed

O.S.No.291/2016 for perpetual injunction in respect of an

open plot and claimed title over the suit property in terms

of a sale deed dated 07.07.2004 which was executed by

Smt. P. Bhavani and Sri. P. Sandeep Reddy who got it in

terms of a WILL dated 17.01.1996 executed by Sri.

Dasartha Ram Reddy. This property was earlier owned by

Sri. Dashartha Ram Reddy, he having purchased it from

Mohammed Shahbuddin in terms of a sale deed dated

06.03.1968. The respondents contended that petitioners

4

were interfering with their possession. Hence, they filed

suit for injunction and an application for interim injunction

was also filed.

03.

The defendants contested the suit and claimed

that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit property

and that the plaintiffs had wrongly proceeded against

them, though the real owner of the suit property was the

father of the defendant No.2 in whose name the revenue

records stood. They contended that the father of the

defendant No.2 was in possession of 27 guntas in land

Sy.No.42 and had constructed a shopping complex.

04.

The

Trial

Court

after

considering

the

documents placed on record, held that the plaintiffs had

prima-facie proved that they were in possession of the suit

property and thus, granted an order of temporary

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with

the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property. An

appeal preferred by the defendants before the First

Appellate Court in M.A.No.4/2017 was also rejected.

Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

5

05.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners

contended that when the suit itself is not maintainable

there was no reason as to why an order of temporary

injunction was granted. He claimed that the ownership of

plaintiffs was disputed and therefore the plaintiffs must

have sought for declaration of their title. In this regard he

has reli