BASAVARAJ vs VIRAPAKSH AND ANR

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11167
WP No. 200934 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030028502024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH


TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT PETITION NO.200934 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

BASAVARAJ W/O MADIVALAPPA KEMBHAVI,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. VIRAPAKSH S/O MALLAPPA YARANAL,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,

2. SIDDU S/O MALLAPPA YARNAL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

BOTH ARE R/O. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)











Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
D UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11167
WP No. 200934 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030028502024



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT
ANNEXURE-D, DATED 14.08.2023 PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BASAVANA
BAGEWADI IN OS NO.122/2021 AND ANNEXURE-G DATED
16.02.2024 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BASAVANA BAGEWADI IN M.A.
NO.14/2023 RESPECTIVELY, TO THE WRIT PETITION. II) ISSUE
ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS
HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

ORAL ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“I) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order at ANNEXURE-D , dated
14.08.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Addl. Civil Judge
and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi in OS No.122/2021
and ANNEXURE-G dated 16.02.2024 passed by the
Hon’ble Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at
Basavana Bagewadi in M.A. No.14/2023
respectively, to the Writ Petition.
II) Issue any other Writ, Order or Direction as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the
case in the interest of justice and equity.”


2. The Petitioner/Plaintiff filed O.S.No.122 of 2021 on the
file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi, (for

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11167
WP No. 200934 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030028502024



short, the ‘Trial Court’) for the relief of permanent injunction
restraining the Respondents/Defendants from causing
obstruction or interfering with the suit schedule property. The
Petitioner/Plaintiff also filed an application seeking temporary
injunction. The Respondents/Defendants filed their written
statement refuting the plaint averments and also filed
objections to the Petitioner/Plaintiff’s application under Order
39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w 151 of CPC. The Trial Court, by order
dated 14.08.2023, rejected the Petitioner/Plaintiff's application
in IA No.1 seeking a temporary injunction.

3. Aggrieved by the Trial Court's order, the
Petitioner/Plaintiff filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2023 on
the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavana
Bagewadi (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’). The
Miscellaneous Appeal so filed has been rejected by the First
Appellate Court vide order dated 16.02.2022, thereby
confirming the order passed by the Trial Court on 14.08.2023
in O.S.No.122 of 2021 on IA.No.I. It is this order which is
impugned in the present Writ Petition.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11167
WP No. 200934 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030028502024




4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that both the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in not
appreciating the Petitioner/Plaintiff's application and appeal
seeking a temporary injunction. Learned counsel further
submits that the Petitioner/Plaintiff has produced the relevant
materials and established a prima facie case and the balance of
convenience for grant of a temporary injunction in his favour.
Despite the case made out by the Petitioner/Plaintiff, both
Courts have erred in rejecting the application for a temporary
injunction. Accordingly, learned counsel would submit that the
orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
must be set aside, and the application filed by the
Petitioner/Plaintiff in IA.No.I seeking temporary injunction must
be allowed.

5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents/Defendants supported the orders passed by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel
submitted that the Petitioner/Plaintiff failed to establish his
possession of the suit property as on the date of filing the suit,
as well as the alleged interference by the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11167
WP No. 200934 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030028502024



Respondents/Defendants. It is further submitted that the
Petitioner/Plaintiff has also failed to establish the exact location
and identification of the suit property, and his possession over
the suit schedule property. With this submission, learned
counsel submits that the present petition, challenging the
orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court,
does not call for interference.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and
learned counsel for Respondents/Defendants and perused the
materials placed on record.

7. The Trial Court considered the application in IA.No.I filed
by the Petitioner/Plaintiff seeking temporary injunction and
categorically rejected it, holding that the Petitioner/Plaintiff has
not produced any documents to show the boundaries of the suit
schedule property. The Trial Court has also reasoned that Sy.
No.399/1+2+3C, measuring 08 acres 10 guntas, was earlier in
the name of the father of the Respondents/Defendants, by
name Mallappa S/o Channappa Yarnal. The Petitioner/Plaintiff
has not produced any documents to show how the suit
schedule property came to the Plaintiff and, in the absence of

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11167
WP No. 200934 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030028502024



any material, the Trial Court rejected the application seeking
temporary injunction, categorically holding that the
Petitioner/Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case and
balance of convenience does not lie in his favour.

8. The First Appellate Court, after examining the appeal
preferred by the Petitioner/Plaintiff, also opined that the
Petitioner/Plaintiff is claiming right over the suit schedule
property based on the revenue records and the relief being
equitable in nature, the burden is upon the Petitioner/Plaintiff
to establish his possession over the suit schedule property as of
the date of filing of the suit and also the alleged interference by
the Respondents/Defendants. The First Appellate Court has
further indicated in the order that there are discrepancies or
disputes in relation to the boundaries of the suit schedule
property and at the stage of consideration of the application,
the Petitioner/Plaintiff has not produced any material
documents to support his case in relation to the disputed
property, more particularly the boundary certificate issued by
the concerned authority.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11167
WP No. 200934 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030028502024




9. This Court must observe that, to claim the relief of
temporary injunction, the Petitioner/Plaintiff must establish a
prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lies in his
favour, and that granting the temporary injunction would not
cause irreparable loss or injury. In the case on hand, the
Petitioner/Plaintiff is claiming right over the suit schedule
property and, except the revenue records, no other documents
have been placed on record to support his claim that he is in
possession of the property, and he has established a prima
facie case for grant of temporary injunction and the balance of
convenience lies in his favour. In the absence of sufficient
material on record, both courts have reached the just
conclusion that no prima facie case is made out for grant of
temporary injunction. Indeed, the First Appellate Court at
paragraph No.19 has observed as under:
“19. On perusal of the entire material
available on record, it reveals that there is a
rival contention in respect of property. The
plaintiff has filed present suit for the relief of
permanent injunction. The relief claimed in the
suit as well as relief claimed in the application
are one and the same. In such scenario, it
needs full fledged trial. If the application is

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11167
WP No. 200934 of 2024

CNR: KAHC030028502024



allowed, then it amount to premature findings
given by this court. The contention raised by
the plaintiff that the defendant causing
obstruction east side ‘ABCD’ sketch of suit
property and tried to cut and remove the
standing trees and mud built boundary,
dispossess the plaintiff from the East side
boundary ‘ABCD’ sketch in suit agricultural
land property bearing 399/1 + 2 +3B. In
respect of the same, at this stage the plaintiff
has not produced any sufficient documents.”


10. In light of the reasoning of the First Appellate Court
referred to above, and considering that the Petitioner/Plaintiff
has not made out any grounds to interfere with the orders
passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the
petition deserves to be rejected. Hence, this court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
The Writ Petition is hereby rejected as no ground is
made out.
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE

MSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
CT: AK