HONNAPPA vs BASAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10994
WP No. 200804 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030023162026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.200804 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
HONNAPPA S/O RAVUJAPPA GUDHAGUNTHI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE,
R/O. DEVARA HULAGABAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-584101
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BASAPPA S/O RAVUJAPPA GUDHAGUNTHI,
AGE:65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.BIJJUR VILLAGE, TQ.MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST.VIJAYAPUR-584101.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS, QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-H PASSED
IN I.A.NO.I DATED 02.02.2026 BY THE V-ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAPURA (TO SIT AT-
MUDDEBIHAL) IN M.A.NO.5021/2025 ALLOWED THE APPEAL
AND REJECTING THE I.A NO.1 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF U/O
XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10994
WP No. 200804 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030023162026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the
judgment dated 02.02.2026 passed in M.A.No.5021
of 2025 (Old M.A.No.1 of 2025) by V Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, sitting at
Muddebihal.
2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition/appeal
are as under:
The petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate
possession in respect of suit schedule properties.
Respondent filed a written statement denying the
averments made in the plaint. The petitioner filed an
application in I.A.No.1 seeking an order of temporary
injunction against the respondent from alienating or
transferring or mortgaging the suit properties. The
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10994
WP No. 200804 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030023162026
said application was opposed by the respondent by
filing the objection. The Trial Court after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties, allowed I.A.No.1 vide
order dated 05.02.2025. Respondent being
aggrieved, preferred an appeal in M.A.No.5021 of
2025 before the V Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Vijayapura, sitting at Muddebihal. The First
Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, allowed the appeal vide judgment dated
02.02.2026 and set aside the order passed on
I.A.No.1 and consequently, dismissed I.A.No.1. The
petitioner aggrieved by the Judgment passed in
M.A.No.5021 of 2025 filed this writ petition.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
trial Court after considering the entire material on
record, allowed the application and restrained the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10994
WP No. 200804 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030023162026
respondent from alienating or creating any charge
over the suit schedule properties. He submits that
the First Appellate Court, without re-appreciating the
material placed on record, except placing reliance on
the decision of this Court, reversed the order. Hence,
he submits that the impugned judgment passed by
the First Appellate Court is without application of
mind and no reasons have been assigned in the
impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has
supported the impugned judgment and contended
that the petitioner has not produced any records to
show that the petitioner is in possession of the entire
suit schedule properties. He submits that in the
revenue records of some of the properties, the name
of the Government is entered. On these grounds, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10994
WP No. 200804 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030023162026
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has filed a
suit for partition and separate possession. In the said
suit, petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.1
seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining
the respondent from alienating the suit schedule
properties and in support of an application filed an
affidavit stating that the respondent is trying to sell
the suit schedule properties. If the respondent is
permitted to sell the suit schedule properties, there
will be multiplicity of litigations. It is contended that
respondent has alienated the suit schedule properties
prior to filing of the suit. If the alienation is made
prior to filing of the suit i.e. without consent of all co-
parceners, and in view of sale made by the
respondent, the Trial Court directed respondent
restraining him from alienating the suit schedule
properties. From the perusal of the judgment passed
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10994
WP No. 200804 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030023162026
in M.A.No.5021/2025, the First Appellate Court
except referring to the record of rights pertaining to
the land bearing Survey No.73/2 and plot No.139 has
not assigned any reasons, except in para 12 which
reads as follows:
“12. All the 5 properties, do not show the name
of plaintiff at all, nor there is any document to
show that. the said 5 properties are joint family
properties. Mere reasoning that, multiplicity of
proceedings will be caused, does not make
ground to allow IA No.1. The trial court ought
to have looked into the names in the revenue
records, to determine prima-facie case,
balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
The area mentioned with respect to first
property 131/2 and the record of rights area is
totally different. The record of rights shows
only 25 guntas in Sy.No.131/2, while it is
shown 6 acres 6 guntas in the affidavit filed in
support of IA No.1 which does not match.
When the description with respect to
measurement of the land is wrong, surely no
prima-facie case would stand in favour of
plaintiff. Likewise, the second and third
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10994
WP No. 200804 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030023162026
¸ÀPÁðj
property shows ' ' in patta column RA
i.e., ownership column i.e., Sy.No.113/4 and
73/2 and yet the trial court has granted
¸ÀPÁðj
injunctive relief. When ' ' is shown in
patta column, it is government property/public
property. The ratio laid down in decisions
reported in ILR 2011 page No.480, ILR
2008 page No.2506, 2024(4) Kar.L.J. 480
between BDA Vs Smt.B.L.Ramadevi and
decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi between
Udaiveer and others., VS Union of India
and others., that no injunction or any rights
can be granted over government land, and that
it causes losses to revenue or government, and
in BDA case, even though building was partly
constructed, temporary injunction was not
granted, are applicable to facts and
circumstances of this case. With respect to the
th
4 property i.e., plot No.139, and even
property No.236, name of plaintiff is not at all
mentioned, and prima-facie case is not made
out at all. This court finds that, the trial court
has wrongly answered the 3 points for
consideration, and this court answers the said
3 points for consideration in the negative.
Likewise, points No.1 and 2 herein are
answered in the Negative , and point No.3 in
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10994
WP No. 200804 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030023162026
the Affirmative , as prima-facie case, balance
of convenience and irreparable loss do not
stand in favour of plaintiff at all.”
8. All the 5 properties, do not show the name of plaintiff
at all, nor there is any document to show that, the
said 5 properties are the joint family properties.
Mere reasoning that, multiplicity of proceedings will
be caused, does not make ground to allow I.A.No.1.
The First Appellate Court has failed to consider the
well established principle of law that while
considering an application for temporary injunction,
the Court is not required to hold a mini trial to
determine whether the properties are ancestral or
joint family properties. The question of whether the
suit schedule properties are ancestral or joint family
properties is a matter that requires a trial. The
impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court is
arbitrary and erroneous. Further, the First Appellate
Court has also failed to consider the well established
principle of law that the scope of judicial review
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10994
WP No. 200804 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030023162026
under Order XLIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is
very narrow and has committed an error in passing
the impugned judgment.
9. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
allowed
i. Writ petition is .
ii. The impugned judgment dated 02.02.2026
passed in M.A.No.5021 of 2025 is set aside.
iii. The order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the
Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal on
I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.286/2023 is restored.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
VNR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
Ct:pk