SHRI. BASAVANT S/O ARJUN MAHAR ALIYAS MELINKERI vs SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O ARJUN MAHAR ALIYAS MELINKERI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16063
WP No. 102058 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020014592024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT PETITION NO. 102058 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. BASAVANT S/O. ARJUN MAHAR @ MELINKERI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. SHRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. ARJUN MAHAR @ MELINKERI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O. ARJUN MAHAR @ MELINKERI,
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSE HOLD
WORK, R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 301.
2. SHRI. ASHOK S/O. ARJUN MAHAR @ MELINKERI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 301.
3. SHRI. BALARAM S/O. ARJUN MHAR @ MELINKERI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 301.
Digitally signed by
PRATIBHA M
PATIL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.10.15
14:40:17 +0530
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VITTHAL L. PADATARE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
R2 & R3 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
JAMKHANDI IN M.A.NO.05/2023 DATED 05-12-2023 VIDE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16063
WP No. 102058 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020014592024
ANNEXURE – J, AND CONFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT ORDER ON
I.A. NO. I IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition
assailing the order dated 05.12.2023 passed in M.A.No.5/2023
by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
1
Jamkhandi , whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was
allowed and I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
was allowed, thereby setting aside the order dated 10.01.2023
passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read
2
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , in
O.S.No.247/2022 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and
3
JMFC, Jamkhandi . Further the First Appellate Court restrained
respondent Nos.1 and 2 from causing obstruction in cutting the
sugarcane crop and supplying the same to the factory in
respect of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.
1
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’
2
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’
3
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16063
WP No. 102058 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020014592024
The First Appellate Court also directed both the parties to co-
operate to the Trial Court for the early disposal of the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the
parties are referred to as per their respective rankings before
the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has
filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants
in respect of the suit schedule property. Upon being served
with summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed
their written statement, denying the averments made in the
plaint. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.I under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking
an order of temporary injunction restraining defendants No.1
and 2 from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in cutting the
sugarcane crop and supplying the same to the factory in
respect of the suit schedule property.
4. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed their objections to the
said application, contending that the allegations made in the
affidavit accompanying the application were false and
concocted. They denied the plaintiff's claim of possession over
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16063
WP No. 102058 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020014592024
the suit schedule property and asserted that defendant No.1
was the absolute owner and in actual possession and
enjoyment of the southern portion of the suit property
measuring 04 acres and 20 guntas situated at Savalagi Village,
Jamkhandi Taluk. They further contended that the plaintiff
could not claim any right or relief merely on the basis of
revenue records or mutation entries and that she had failed to
produce supporting documents, such as tax-paid receipts,
electricity bills or previous sugarcane sale bills, to establish her
possession and cultivation of the land. It was also contended
that the plaintiff, being aged about 85 years, was not in a
position to cultivate the land, and that she had neither lodged
any complaint alleging obstruction by the defendants nor
produced any photographs to substantiate such allegations.
Accordingly, defendants No.1 and 2 sought dismissal of the
application for temporary injunction.
5. After hearing both parties, the Trial Court rejected
I.A.No.I filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
read with Section 151 of the CPC. Being aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiff preferred M.A.No.5/2023 before the First
Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16063
WP No. 102058 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020014592024
filed by the plaintiff and also allowed I.A.No.I filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the First
Appellate Court set aside the order dated 10.01.2023 passed
by the Trial Court in O.S.No.247/2022. Being aggrieved by the
said order, defendants No.1 and 2 have preferred the present
petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants
No.1 and 2 submits that the impugned order passed by the
First Appellate Court is erroneous and contrary to the material
on record. It is contended that the name of the plaintiff is not
reflected in the RTC records in respect of the suit schedule
property. Despite the same, the First Appellate Court has
erroneously granted an order of injunction in favour of the
plaintiff. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to
allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order passed
by the First Appellate Court and confirming the order passed by
the Trial Court.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
supports the impugned order passed by the First Appellate
Court, contending that the mutation entry in M.E.No.9325 has
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16063
WP No. 102058 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020014592024
not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. It is therefore
contended that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting I.A.No.I
seeking an order of temporary injunction. Hence, the learned
counsel for the respondents prays to reject the writ petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the
materials available on record.
9. The First Appellate Court, at paragraphs No.12, 13,
14, 15 and 16, has held as under:
“12.
The defendant No.1 and 2 filed objections,
but not denied the partition and mutation effected in
the revenue records not defendant No.1 and 2 stated
how they got the suit schedule properties. If there
was no partition as alleged by the plaintiff, the
defendant No.1 and 2 could have stated when the
partition taken place and what are the properties
allotted to the plaintiff and defendants. The
appellant/plaintiff has produced copy of mutation
No.9326, the recitals of the same are
“¢£ÁAPÀ
11.09.1995 E¹é ¨ÁdPÉÌ §gÉzÀ ¸À£ÀA ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw
C£ÀߥÀÆuÁð ªÀĺÁgÀ ªÀ 5 d£À UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ
Further the recitals of the
»jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ _____
said document is that “
¸ÀzÀj ¸À,£ÀA.377gÀ°è CtÚ¥ÀÆtð
PÉÆA CdÄð£À EªÀjUÉ ºÀAiÀiÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÉUÉ G¥À¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ
If
EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀ ªÁnß ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrvÀÄ.”
this portion of the document is taken into
consideration it shows that the Sy.No.377 kept for
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16063
WP No. 102058 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020014592024
maintenance of the plaintiff during her lifetime.
Though the properties were allotted to the
defendants, but this property kept for maintenance of
the plaintiff. The defendants No.1 and 2 have not
challenged the said mutation entries. When the
defendant No.1 and 2 have admitted the partition and
mutation in respect of properties allotted, they cannot
deny the part of the mutation register extract in
respect of suit schedule property kept of maintenance
of the plaintiff.
13. Further the defendants nowhere stated the
maintenance provided to the plaintiff nor stated the
land kept for maintenance. If the defendants have
produced documents to show that they had given
property to the plaintiff for her maintenance or they
are maintaining the plaintiff then matter would be
different. The defendant No.2 has produced copy of
tax paid receipt pertaining to Sy.No.269/1,
Sy.No.333/2, Sy.No.269/2/1+2. Further defendant
No.2 produced sugarcane weighing receipt, there is
no mention of survey numbers. The defendant No.2
produced copy of O.S.No.47/2023.
14. The plaintiff has produced RTC extract
pertaining to Sy.No.333/1A, the name of defendant
No.1 is appearing in column No.9 and 12, therefore it
shows that the defendant No.1 is having another land
in Sy.No.333/1A. The plaintiff has also produced
Farmer cane supply details, the name of plaintiff
shown as farmer for the year 2017-2018 to 2021 to
2022. The plaintiff has also produced details of bills,
therefore it shows that the plaintiff has supplied the
sugarcane to the factory. The defendants nowhere
stated that plaintiff is having other lands in her name
or got other lands under partition and she supplying
sugarcane to the factory. The defendant No.1 and 2
have not produced documents to show that they have
grown the sugarcane in the suit schedule property.
15. It is duty and obligation of children to look
after their parents during their old age. As per the
pleadings it shows that plaintiff is aged about 75
years and in the objections, the defendant No.1 and 2
have stated that plaintiff is aged about 85 years. The
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16063
WP No. 102058 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020014592024
plaintiff has approached the court stating that the suit
schedule property is kept for her maintenance during
her lifetime, but the defendant No.1 and 2 denied the
same and made the plaintiff to file the suit during the
evening of her life.
16. The defendant No.1 and 2 have not
produced any documents to show that properties
have been allotted to the plaintiff in the partition.
Further they have admitted the mutation as alleged
by the plaintiff, hence they cannot admit the partition
favorable to them and they cannot deny the
remaining portion. The plaintiff has produced the
mutation extract and copies of sugarcane bills and
Former cane supply details, therefore it shows that
the plaintiff has supplied the sugarcane to the
Shri.Prabhulengeshwar Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.,
Siddapur and M.E has not been challenged by the
defendants. Further in the objections the defendant
No.1 and 2 have stated that on the basis of the
revenue records the plaintiff cannot claim such reliefs,
therefore, they admitted the revenue records. The
trial court has not considered the mutation entry, in
which it clearly mentioned that the suit schedule
property is kept for maintenance during her life time,
therefore on perusal of material evidence on record it
shows that the plaintiff has supplied the sugarcane to
the factory till 2022. The contention of defendants is
matter of trial. It is settled principle of law while
considering the application for grant of injunction
court not only consider a existence of prima-facie
case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, but
also the conduct of the parties as relevant
consideration of grant or refusal. The defendant No.1
and 2 being the sons obstructing the plaintiff for
enjoyment of the suit schedule property, though it is
duty of sons to look after the parents during their old
age.”
10. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid materials,
the First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16063
WP No. 102058 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020014592024
Trial Court failed to take into consideration of all these material
facts while passing the order of injunction. Having regard to the
age of the plaintiff, who is above 75 years, and also to the
mutation extract standing in her name pursuant to an
arrangement under which the property was to be retained for
her maintenance, the First Appellate Court has rightly come to
the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
injunction.
11. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the First Appellate Court granting an injunction in
favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the mutation entry, which
has remained unchallenged by the defendants No.1 and 2.
12. Hence, the following:
ORDER
dismissed
a) The writ petition is .
b) The order dated 05.12.2023 passed in
M.A.No.5/2023 by the Court of Principal
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Jamkhandi, is hereby confirmed.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16063
WP No. 102058 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020014592024
c) Since the suit is of the year 2022, the
Trial Court is requested to expedite the
disposal of the matter. Both the parties
are directed to cooperate with the
proceedings and not to seek
unnecessary adjournments.
Pending IAs’, if any, stand disposed of as
they do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
PMP/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22