SMT RAJAMMA vs SMT LAXMAMMA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57069
WP No. 6571 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010499632019





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 6571 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O SRI. RAJAGOPAL NAIK,
D/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

2.
PARVATHAMMA
D/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT THONDEBHAVI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS











(BY SRI. NAIK N.R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. LAXMAMMA
W/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

2. SRI. NANJUNDA
S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57069
WP No. 6571 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010499632019



3. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

4. SRI. SHANKARA
S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

5. SRI. SHIVA
S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

6. SMT. AKKAYYAMMA
D/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ARASAPURA VILLAGE,
BOMMALADAPURA POST,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

7. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

8. SRI. VENKATESHA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57069
WP No. 6571 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010499632019



9. SRI. THIRUMALAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

10. SRI. LAXMIKANTHA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

11.
SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

12.
SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
W/O SRI. MAGI NARASIMHAPPA,
D/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.7 TO 12 ALL ARE
RESIDING AT KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. VAGEESHA N, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R11;
R5 - SHIVA - SERVED)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE M.A.
NO.15010/2018 DATED 09.04.2019 BY THE 5th ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, PRODUCED
AT ANNX-H AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57069
WP No. 6571 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010499632019



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs challenging

the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below rejecting
their application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”), seeking an
order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from
alienating the suit schedule properties.
2. The plaintiffs have instituted O.S.No.284/2014 seeking
partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the
suit schedule properties. In the said suit, they filed an
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC
seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the
defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties during
the pendency of the suit.
3. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the prima facie
material placed on record by both parties, observed that the
documents produced by the plaintiffs themselves did not prima
facie establish that the suit schedule properties stood in the
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57069
WP No. 6571 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010499632019



name of the propositus, Thimmaiah. On the contrary, the
documents relied upon by the defendants prima facie indicated
that the suit schedule properties had been acquired by them in
their individual capacity. Accordingly, the Trial Court, by order
dated 20.07.2018, rejected the application filed by the
plaintiffs.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, upon
re-examination of the prima facie material placed on record,
concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. It
observed that, except for the assertions in the plaint that the
suit schedule properties were joint family properties, the
plaintiffs had not produced prima facie material to substantiate
their claim so as to warrant an order of temporary injunction
restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule
properties. Consequently, the Appellate Court, by order dated
09.04.2019, affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. The
aforesaid concurrent orders are called in question in the
present writ petition.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57069
WP No. 6571 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010499632019



5. It is relevant to note that no interim order has been
granted by this Court in the present proceedings, which have
remained pending since 2020. The suit itself was instituted in
the year 2014. In the above circumstances, this Court, while
exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is not inclined to undertake a fresh re-
appreciation of the prima facie material considered by the
Courts below.
6. Both the Courts below have examined the material
placed on record and, upon consideration of the same, have
declined to exercise their discretion in favour of the plaintiffs.
The mere fact that the plaintiffs seek partition of the suit
schedule properties on the assertion that they constitute joint
family properties would not, by itself, entitle them to an order
of temporary injunction, particularly when the Courts below
have found that the material produced does not prima facie
substantiate their claim. This Court, in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, cannot substitute its own view for that of the Courts
below merely because another view may be possible.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57069
WP No. 6571 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010499632019



Interference would be warranted only where the orders suffer
from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.
7. On examination of the impugned orders, this Court
does not find any perversity or jurisdictional infirmity
warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are
based on an assessment of the prima facie material available
on record. This Court, therefore, finds no justification to extend
any indulgence to the plaintiffs in the present proceedings.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE






HDK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11