SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA BHEEMAKKANAVAR vs SRI. MADHUMATI W/O MAHADEVAPPA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 101447 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)



BETWEEN:

SRI. MAHADEVAPPA
S/O HANUMANTAPPA BHEEMAKKANAVAR
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(IRRIGATION)
R/O. CROSS NO.23 A, VIDYAGIRI
OPP. TO AKKIMARADI PETROL PUMP,
BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOTE- 587102






…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MRUNTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. MADHUMATI W/O MAHADEVAPPA
KERIMATTIHALLI AT BHEEMAKKANAVAR
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
R/O. CROSS NO.23 A, VIDYAGIRI
OPP. TO AKKIMARADI PETROL PUMP
BAGALKOTE, TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOTE- 587102.





Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
high court of
karnataka,
dharwad
bench

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2026 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AT RAMDURG PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E
IN M.A.NO.2/2025 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER


1. This petition is filed by the defendant in O.S. No.18/2025,
instituted by the respondent herein, being aggrieved by
the order dated 31.01.2026 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge, Ramdurg, in M.A. No.2/2025, seeking the
following reliefs:

“a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or other
appropriate writ, order or direction and Quash the
order dated 31/01/2026 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge at Ramdurg produced at Annexure-E, in Μ.Α
No.2/2025 in Interest of Justice and equity.

b. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.”


2. The petitioner and the respondent in the present
proceedings are husband and wife. The relationship
between the parties is not in dispute.

3. The respondent-wife has filed O.S. No.18 of 2025 seeking
the following reliefs:
“a] An order be passed declaring the Power of
Attorney dated 31-07-2018 registered in the office
of Sub-Registrar Ramdurg is void not binding on
the plaintiff.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026



b] Order be passed revoking, annulling, cancelling all
authorized Powers of management,
administration, supervision of business of Hotel of
plaintiff "Hotel Haripriya International"
entrusted to defendant under registered Power of
Attorney dated 31-07-2018.

c] The defendant, his servants, his agents, any
person or persons, claiming through him, his
representatives be restrained from the order of
permanent injunction from interfering with the
lawful, and peaceful possession, Wahiwat and
enjoyment of plaintiff over the administration,
supervision, and management of her Hotel
business i.e. Hotel Haripriya International.

d] The defendant, his servants, his agents, any
person or persons claiming through him or any of
his representatives be restrained from the order of
prohibitory injunction from alienating, creating
charge, encumbrance, exchange, gift, mortgage or
dealing with right of management, supervision,
and administration of business of plaintiff i.e.
Hotel Haripriya International or creating third-
party interest in any manner whatsoever.

e] An order passed by this Hon'ble Court under
prayer a & b referred above be communicated to
the Sub-Registrar Ramdurg to endorse in its
register of verdict of this Hon'ble Court of
revoking, annulling, withdrawing the authorization
in favour of defendant under Registered Power of
Attorney dated 31-07-2018.

f] Costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff from
the defendant.

g] Permission to amend the plaint be granted to the
plaintiff as and when necessary.

h] Any other reliefs to which plaintiff found entitle be
awarded.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026



A decree in the above terms in favour of plaintiff
against defendant may be passed.”



4. It is the case of the respondent-wife that she is the owner
of the land bearing R.S. No. 135/3B, measuring 1 acre,
situated at Navanagar, Bagalkot, together with the
building constructed thereon, comprising the ground
floor, first floor and second floor, along with the open
space. The said property is being used for running a hotel
under the name and style of “Hotel Haripriya
International.

5. The respondent-wife contends that she purchased the
aforesaid property under a sale deed dated 17.06.2008,
after raising a loan of ₹1,00,000/- from a Co-operative
Bank, Dharwad, Bagalkot Branch, and that she
subsequently discharged the loan.

6. It is further contended by the respondent-wife that, as
she required assistance in running the business and
managing the affairs relating to the property, she
executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated
31.07.2018 in favour of the petitioner-husband.
According to the respondent-wife, the said Power of

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026



Attorney was executed solely for the purpose of
managing the affairs of the property and did not create
any independent proprietary interest in favour of the
petitioner-husband.

7. The respondent-wife, upon discovering the alleged misuse
of the General Power of Attorney, sought cancellation of
the same by executing a deed of cancellation. The
jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, however, issued an
endorsement declining to cancel the registered Power of
Attorney unilaterally.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-wife filed W.P.
No.103965 of 2023 seeking appropriate directions. The
said writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter, W.A.
No.10066 of 2023 was also disposed of.

9. The relevant details of the orders passed in the above
proceedings are as follows:
“(d) Learned counsel, Sri. Jagadish Patil places
reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of
1
A.G.Shivalingappa Vs. A.G.Shankarappa and
also in the case of S.Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Sub-
2
Registrar (Headquarters) , to submit that
respondent No.5-Sub-Registrar has no power to
refuse registration of a document if presented for
registration. There is no dispute or quarrel with

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026



regard to the principles laid down in the above two
decisions. The decisions on which the learned
counsel for the appellant places reliance would have
no application, particularly, to the facts of the
present case. In the instant case, the document
presented for registration was to cancel the GPA,
which was executed by the petitioner in favour of
respondent No.6 coupled with interest, that too
seeking cancellation unilaterally by the petitioner. It
is to be noted that the petitioner has already
instituted a suit in O.S. FR.No.46/2023 on the file of
the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramdurg, with a prayer to
cancel the GPA executed by the petitioner in favour
of respondent No.6 and the same is pending
consideration. When already, the petitioner has
instituted a suit for cancellation of GPA, normally, the
petitioner could not have approached the Writ Court
questioning refusal to register the document titled as
“Cancellation of General Power of Attorney”.
8. There is no merit in any of the contentions
raised by the appellant/petitioner and accordingly, the
writ appeal stands rejected.”

10. In the above circumstances, the respondent-wife
instituted O.S. No.18 of 2025 and filed an application
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, seeking the following reliefs:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit, it is most humbly prayed that an Ad-interim
ex-parte Temporary Injunction may kindly be
granted against Defendant, his agents, servants, any
person or persons claiming through him or his
representatives from changing the nature of the suit
property, alienating, dealing with, mortgaging,
creating third-party interest etc. in and over the suit
property i.e. "Hotel Haripriya" now renamed as
"Hotel Haripriya International" Lodging Boarding and

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026



Restaurant" near A.P.M.C. Cross, Navanagar-
Bagalkot comprised in R.S.No.135/3B measuring 01-
Acre and land bearing R.S.No.135/3B measuring 01-
Acre, further not to operate Bank Accounts of
business of plaintiff on the basis of revoked General
Power of Attorney dated 31-07-2018, till final
determination of suit in the interest of justice and
equity.”

11. Objections were filed to the said application.
Upon consideration of the same, the Trial Court
rejected the said application by its order dated
09.04.2025.

12. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the
respondent-wife preferred M.A. No.2 of 2025 before
the Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg. Upon consideration
of the matter, the appellate Court allowed the appeal
by passing the impugned order.

13. It is this order that is called in question by the
petitioner-husband in the present writ petition.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband,
taking this Court through the records, submits that
the earlier attempt by the respondent-wife to secure
unilateral cancellation of the registered General Power

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026



of Attorney was unsuccessful in the proceedings
before the competent Courts, including the Apex
Court. According to learned counsel, the said
proceedings confirm that the rights created in favour
of the petitioner-husband under the instrument have
been recognised.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband
further refers to O.S. No.62/2025, filed by the
petitioner-husband against the respondent-wife,
wherein an interim order of injunction dated
28.04.2025 was passed, restraining the respondent-
wife from interfering with the administration and
business activities of Hotel Haripriya International,
stated to be carried on by the petitioner-husband in
the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the
suit.

16. It is contended that the impugned order,
particularly the direction restraining the petitioner-
husband from dealing with the property, would

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026



operate contrary to the interim order passed in the
aforesaid suit.

17. Learned counsel submits that, in terms of the
interim order passed in the said suit, the petitioner-
husband is entitled to run the hotel business, which
would include incidental and allied activities connected
therewith. It is further contended that, if the
impugned order is permitted to continue, it would
negate the protection granted to the petitioner-
husband under the interim order passed in the
connected suit. On these grounds, learned counsel
seeks interference with the impugned order.

18. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent-
wife submits that the order passed by the appellate
Court is clear, categorical and unambiguous and
leaves no room for any doubt or ambiguity. It is
contended that the impugned order does not come in
the way of the interim order passed in the connected
suit.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026




19. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife further
submits that, under the guise of the registered Power
of Attorney, the petitioner-husband is attempting to
deal with the property in a manner prejudicial to the
interests of the respondent-wife. According to learned
counsel, the appellate Court has taken note of the
circumstances and has specifically restrained the
petitioner-husband from creating any third-party
interest in the property or changing its nature.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife
contends that the impugned order does not interfere
with the alleged possession of the petitioner-husband
or with the conduct of the hotel business. Accordingly,
learned counsel submits that no interference with the
impugned order is warranted.

21. Heard and perused the records.

22. The impugned order passed in M.A.No.2/2025
reads as under:
“O R D E R

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026



The Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant
under Section 104 r/w. Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of C.P.C
against the order of the Court of Civil Judge,
Ramdurg dated 09.04.2025 passed on I.A. No.I filed
by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
CPC for temporary injunction in O.S.No.18/2025 is
allowed.
The order of the trial court is set aside.
I.A.No.I filed by the plaintiff under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is hereby allowed.
Consequently, the defendant, his agents or
men, servants, any person or anybody or any
persons claiming through him or his representatives
are hereby restrained by way of temporary injunction
from changing the nature of the suit property,
alienating, dealing with, mortgaging, creating third-
party interest etc., in and over the suit property i.e.
“Hotel Haripriya” now renamed as “Hotel Haripriya
International” Lodging, Boarding and Restaurant”
near A.P.M.C. Cross, Navanagar – Bagalkot
comprised in R.S.No.135/3B measuring 01 acre and
land bearing R.S.No:135/3B measuring 01 acres, and
further not to operate Bank Accounts of business of
plaintiff on the basis of revoked General Power of
Attorney dated 31.07.2018, till final determination of
suit.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the
case, there is no order as to cost.
Office is to return the records of the trial court
along with copy of this judgment.”


23. The interim order passed in O.S. No. 62/2025
reads as under:

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026




“::ORDER::

I.A.No.II filed by the plaintiff under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/W Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure is hereby allowed.

Consequently, defendant, her men and her
servants are hereby restrained by way of temporary
injunction from interfering with the administration
of Hotel business activities which is being carried
out by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property till
disposal of suit.

No order as to costs.”

The respondent-wife is stated to have been restrained
from interfering with the business activities of Hotel
Haripriya International, which are being carried on by
the petitioner-husband.

24. In the impugned order, as noted above, the
appellate Court has specifically restrained the
petitioner-husband from changing the nature of the
suit schedule property, alienating or otherwise dealing
with the property, mortgaging the same, creating
third-party interests therein, and operating the bank
account of the business of the respondent-wife on the
basis of the revoked Power of Attorney.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026




25. The aforesaid directions cannot be construed, as
contended by the petitioner-husband, as necessarily
interfering with the interim order passed in the
connected suit. The interim order referred to by the
petitioner-husband concerns interference with the
administration and business activities of Hotel
Haripriya International. The impugned order, on the
other hand, seeks to preserve the suit schedule
property and regulate dealings with the property and
the relevant business bank account pending
adjudication of the rights of the parties.

26. Preservation of the subject matter of the dispute
is an elementary requirement in proceedings where
the rights of the parties in respect of immovable
property are yet to be finally adjudicated. The
impugned order must be read and understood in that
context and to the extent of the restrictions expressly
imposed therein. The interim order permitting the
petitioner-husband to continue the business
operations cannot be construed as permitting him to

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17082
WP No. 101447 of 2026

CNR: KAHC020030002026



create third-party rights or creating encumbrances
over the subject property.

27. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no
grounds warranting interference with the order passed
by the appellate Court.

28. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .


Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE






VB/CT-CMU/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4