MAHADEV S/O LAKSHMAN TURAI vs SHRI JINNAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA BABANNAVAR BY HIS LRS.

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16552
WP No. 108467 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020184962026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 108467 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

MAHADEV S/O LAKSHMAN TURAI
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RABAKAVI, TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587101.


…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI JINNAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA BABANNAVAR
BY HIS LR’S.

1. SMT. SUMITRA W/O JINNAPPA BABANNAVAR,
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI 587113.

2. SMT. AKKATAI W/O RAVASAB PATIL
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI 587113.





Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
SAROJA
HANGARAKI

3. SMT. ANITA W/O AJIT KAMGOUDA
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KARATKKOPPA , TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591304.
4. SMT. BHARATI W/O CHANDRAKANT MAGADUM
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TERDAL, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.
5. SMT. SAVITRI W/O BHUJABALI BELAGALI
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AIGALI, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591304.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16552
WP No. 108467 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020184962026



6. JAYASHREE W/O SHEETAL NAGANUR
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI 587113.

7. SHRI SIDDAPPA S/O JINNAPPA BABANNAVAR
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI 587113.

8. SHRI. BHIMAPPA S/O JINNAPPA BABANNAVAR
AGE. 18 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI 587113.

9. SHRI MADHUSUDHAN S/O KAREPPA BILAGI
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI 587113.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
05.01.2021 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG IN O.S
NO.314/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04.12.2023 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG IN
M.A NO.01/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

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

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

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16552
WP No. 108467 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020184962026


ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.314/2019
filed by one Jinnappa, since deceased and now represented
by respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein, is before this Court
seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) A writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 05.01.2021 passed by Civil
Judge and JMFC, Raibag in O.S No.314/2019 vide
Annexure-E and impugned order dated
04.12.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Raibag in M.A No.01/2021 vide Annexure-F
respectively.

(ii) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”


2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the said Jinnappa against
the petitioner herein and another seeking the relief of
permanent injunction in respect of the suit property
measuring 7 acres 22 guntas forming part of
R.S.No.187/1B and another extent of 18 guntas forming
part of R.S.No.187/1, both situated at Mugalkhod Village
and contending that the plaintiff had purchased the said
properties in terms of registered deed of sale dated
26.05.2009 and that his name has been mutated in

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16552
WP No. 108467 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020184962026


revenue records. Alleging interference by the defendants
with his possession on the premise that the defendants
were claiming right over the property based on the lease-
cum-mortgage deed, the aforesaid suit for injunction came
to be filed.

3. The defendant filed his written statement along with an
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After contest,
the trial Court, by order dated 05.01.2021, allowed
I.A.No.3 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of the CPC and restrained the defendants from
causing any obstruction or disturbance to the plaintiff’s
possession over the suit schedule property. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred a miscellaneous
appeal in M.A.No.1 of 2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC Raibag, which after considering the matter on
merits, dismissed the said appeal by order dated
04.12.2023 and confirmed the order passed by the trial
court. It is these two orders which are called in question in
the present writ petition.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16552
WP No. 108467 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020184962026



4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
said orders had gone against the petitioner, he did not
choose to challenge the same at that stage, inasmuch as
he was in possession of the property. That the occasion to
challenge the said orders arose in view of the order dated
19.09.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.103685/2022, whereby the jurisdictional police
were directed to provide police protection/aid to
respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein on the allegation that the
petitioner was trying to dispossess them and was acting
contrary to the interim order. Thus, he submits that it has
now become imperative for the petitioner to challenge the
orders passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate
Court. He further submits that the petitioner has been in
possession of the land and has been growing sugarcane
thereon and that there is standing crop. If interim order or
protection is not granted irreparable loss will be caused to
the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the petitioner, who had contested the interim

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16552
WP No. 108467 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020184962026


application filed in the suit as well as the miscellaneous
appeal and having suffered orders as far back as in the
year 2021, having kept quiet for nearly five years and has
now come up seeking to reverse the said orders. He
submits that the miscellaneous appeal filed by the
petitioner in M.A.No.1/2021 was also disposed of on
04.12.2023. Thus, at least from the date of the order
passed in M.A.No.1/2021, nearly three years over and the
petitioner has no ground to seek indulgence in the orders
which have attained finality.

6. Heard. Perused the records.

7. There is no dispute of the fact that by order dated
05.01.2021, the trial Court had restrained the
defendant/petitioner herein from interfering with the
peaceful possession enjoyment suit property by the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein. Though the said order
was put in question in M.A.No.1/2021, the same resulted
in dismissal, thereby confirming the order of the trial Court
by order dated 04.12.2023. Whereas from 04.12.2023 till
date, there has been no challenge to the said order.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16552
WP No. 108467 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020184962026



8. In the meanwhile respondents/plaintiffs had approached
this court by filing writ petition W.P.No.103685/2022
seeking necessary directions to the jurisdictional Police to
render assistance, which has been allowed vide order
dated 19.09.2025.

9. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 has also initiated the contempt
proceedings in C.C.No.100271/2026 alleging non-
compliance of the order passed by this Court order dated
19.09.2025 passed by this court in W.P.No.103685/2022,
which is stated to be still pending consideration.

10. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has now
come to this Court seeking reversal of the orders dated
05.01.2021 and 04.12.2023 passed by the trial Court and
the First Appellate Court, respectively.

11. The trial Court, in paragraphs No.15 and 16 of its order,
has taken note of the contention urged by the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein with regard to his right,
title and entitlement over the suit property based on the
registered deed of sale, as well as the revenue entries
reflecting his name. The First Appellate Court has also

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16552
WP No. 108467 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020184962026


taken this aspect of the matter into consideration. It is
only thereafter that the trial Court and the first appellate
Court have concluded that the plaintiff/respondent was
entitled for grant of temporary injunction, as he had title
and possession over the suit property duly evidenced by
the registered sale deed and revenue records.

12. The said findings and the conclusion arrived by the trial
Court and confirmed by first appellate Court based on the
records in exercise of the discretion power cannot be found
fault with the same. The said orders suffer from no
irregularity or perversity.

13. That apart, petitioner who was restrained by the said
orders, has now chosen to challenge the same after nearly
five years from the date of original order of the trial Court
and close to three years of the order passed by the first
appellate Court.

14. On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has also filed a suit in
O.S.No.119/2019 against the plaintiff/respondent

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16552
WP No. 108467 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020184962026


Nos.1 to 7 herein for identical reason for permanent
injunction, which is also pending before the same court.

15. Since parties are the same, subject matter of the suits are
same and the parties are claiming the right, title and
interest based on the set of averments allegations, which
are identical and similar, learned counsel for the parties
submit that, if a direction is given to the trial Court to take
up both the matters for analogous hearing and early
disposal, the purpose of the petition will be served.

16. The said submission is placed on record.

17. The trial Court is therefore directed to take up both the
suits in O.S.No.314/2019 as well as O.S.No.119/2019 and
proceed to try and hear both the suits analogously and
dispose of same as expeditiously as possible, within an
outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.

18. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed
of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RHR/-CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21