ONKARAPPA C.V. vs SRI K N MAHESH,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52330
WP No. 24799 of 2026
C/W WP No. 24554 of 2026
WP No. 24823 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010540162026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 24799 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 24554 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24823 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 24799/2026
BETWEEN:
1. ONKARAPPA C.V.
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.21,
BOMMALINGSHWARA NILAYA,
OPP. TO TARALUBALU LADIES HOSTEL,
MUNIRATHNAMMA LAYOUT,
KRUSHINAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 204.
2. KIRAN
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHEERANAHALLY VILLAGE,
AJJAMPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 549.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. ANKITH C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.B. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52330
WP No. 24799 of 2026
C/W WP No. 24554 of 2026
WP No. 24823 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010540162026
AND:
1. SRI. K.N. MAHESH,
S/O A.T. NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT KANNABHAGATTE VILLAGE,
SHIVANI HOBLI, AJJAMPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 549.
2. SRI. K.N. NAVEEN,
S/O A.T. NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KANNABHAGATTE VILLAGE,
SHIVANI HOBLI, AJJAMPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 549.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TARIKERE, IN M.A.NO.3/2025
IN ANNEXURE A AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
07.12.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
TARIKERE, IN O.S.NO.58/2024 ON I.A. NO.1 IN ANNEXURE B,
GRANTING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF THE
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 24554/2026
BETWEEN:
1. ONKARAPPA C.V.
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.21,
BOMMALINGSHWARA NILAYA,
OPP TO TARALUBALU LADIES HOSTEL,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52330
WP No. 24799 of 2026
C/W WP No. 24554 of 2026
WP No. 24823 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010540162026
MUNIRATHNAMMA LAYOUT,
KRUSHINAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 204.
2. KIRAN
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHEERANAHALLY VILLAGE,
AJJAMPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 549.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANKITH C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.B. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. K. S. BASAVARAJU,
S/O K. B. SHIVAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KANABHAGATTE VILLAGE,
SHIVANI HOBLI, AJJAMPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 549.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2026 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TARIKERE, IN
M.A.NO.2/2025 IN ANNEXURE A AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 07.12.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC IN ANNEXURE B, TARIKERE, IN
O.S.NO.62/2024, GRANTING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52330
WP No. 24799 of 2026
C/W WP No. 24554 of 2026
WP No. 24823 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010540162026
FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
IN WP NO. 24823/2026
BETWEEN:
1. ONKARAPPA C.V.
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.21,
BOMMALINGSHWARA NILAYA,
OPP TO TARALUBALU LADIES HOSTEL,
MUNIRATHNAMMA LAYOUT,
KRUSHINAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 204.
2. KIRAN
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHEERANAHALLY VILLAGE,
AJJAMPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 549.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANKITH C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.B. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. K.M. SHAMBANNA
S/O A.T. MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT ADIBHOOTAPPA STREET,
VIJAYAPURA EXTENSION,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADRE, ADVOCATE)
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52330
WP No. 24799 of 2026
C/W WP No. 24554 of 2026
WP No. 24823 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010540162026
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC. TARIKERE, IN M.A.NO.
1/2025 IN ANNEXURE A AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 07.12.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, TARIKERE, IN O.S.NO.60/2024 IN ANNEXURE B,
GRANTING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN FAVOUR OF THE
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petitions impugn the concurrent findings
recorded by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Tarikere, by orders dated 07.12.2024 and by the learned
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere, by orders dated
30.04.2026 whereby the petitioners have been restrained from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
respective suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs. The writ
petitions and the impugned orders are tabulated for ready
reference.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52330
WP No. 24799 of 2026
C/W WP No. 24554 of 2026
WP No. 24823 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010540162026
Sl. Concurring Order Original Order –
Writ Petition
No. – Date Date
M.A. No.3/2025 – O.S. No.58/2024 –
1. W.P. No.24799/2026
30.04.2026 07.12.2024
M.A. No.2/2025 – O.S. No.62/2024 –
2. W.P. No.24554/2026
30.04.2026 07.12.2024
M.A. No.1/2025 – O.S. No.60/2024 –
3. W.P. No.24823/2026
30.04.2026 07.12.2024
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that both the Courts below, while considering the
documents produced by the petitioners, including the revenue
records and affidavits of the adjacent landowners, have failed
to properly appreciate the material on record demonstrating
the petitioners’ possession over the respective suit schedule
properties. It is submitted that the impugned orders, having
been passed without due consideration of the documents
produced by the petitioners, are unsustainable and warrant
interference by this Court.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1, who is on caveat, supports the impugned
orders and submits that both the Courts below have granted
the orders of injunction after taking into consideration the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52330
WP No. 24799 of 2026
C/W WP No. 24554 of 2026
WP No. 24823 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010540162026
revenue entries, which carry a statutory presumption of
correctness. It is further submitted that the petitioners have
not placed any rebuttal evidence on record to dislodge the said
presumption.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
5. The suits are for permanent injunction. The
plaintiffs filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the respective suit schedule
properties. In support of their respective claims, the parties
have produced various documents. The defendants, in
particular, have relied upon the revenue records as well as the
affidavits of neighbouring landowners to substantiate their
claim of possession.
6. Both the Courts below, upon consideration of the
material on record, have found that the RTCs pertaining to the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52330
WP No. 24799 of 2026
C/W WP No. 24554 of 2026
WP No. 24823 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010540162026
respective suit schedule properties reflect the possession of the
plaintiffs and, accordingly, have granted orders of injunction.
7. The defendants have contended that the said RTCs
have been manipulated. However, no corroborative material
has been placed on record in support of the said contention. It
is also not in dispute that the defendants have not initiated any
appropriate proceedings challenging the alleged fabrication of
the RTCs.
8. The RTCs produced by the plaintiffs carry a
statutory presumption as to their correctness. In the absence of
any cogent material to rebut such presumption, the Courts
below were justified in placing reliance upon the said revenue
records. The Courts below were also justified in not attaching
much significance, at the interlocutory stage, to the affidavits
stated to have been filed by the adjacent landowners.
9. The other revenue documents relied upon by the
defendants, which are stated to be contrary to the RTCs relied
upon by the plaintiffs, give rise to disputed questions of fact.
The evidentiary value and correctness of such documents are
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52330
WP No. 24799 of 2026
C/W WP No. 24554 of 2026
WP No. 24823 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010540162026
matters which are required to be adjudicated upon at the trial.
The Courts below have rightly left such questions open for
consideration during the course of the trial.
10. In view of the above, this Court finds no error or
infirmity in the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below
warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of
this Court.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of
his submissions, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.8690/2024, dated
29.04.2025, and the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in
Jagadish v. Girdhari Lal Sharma, 2022 (4) RLW
(Rajasthan) 3346. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the said judgments are of
no assistance to the petitioners.
12. Accordingly, the writ petitions, being devoid of
merit, are dismissed.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
plaintiffs, taking advantage of the interim orders, are seeking
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:52330
WP No. 24799 of 2026
C/W WP No. 24554 of 2026
WP No. 24823 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010540162026
unnecessary adjournments and are not cooperating with the
early disposal of the suits.
14. Though the said submission does not merit
acceptance at this stage, considering that the suits are stated
to be at the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence even after a period of
two years, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the disposal
of the suits, as far as practicable, by avoiding unnecessary
adjournments and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4