SRI. G K DHARMENDRA vs SRI G T UMAPATHI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57870
WP No. 5264 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5594 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010112592025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5264 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 5594 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 5264/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G.K. DHARMENDRA,
S/O LATE KRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
2. SRI. THIPPESHAPPA,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
GARAGA VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. C.A. AJITH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. G.T. UMAPATHI,
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GARAGA VILLAGE,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57870
WP No. 5264 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5594 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010112592025
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B.N. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD. 12.02.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI IN O.S.NO. 45/2021 ON
I.A.NO. 4 (IN THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER IT IS
WRONGLY MENTIONED AS IA NO.5) AT ANNX-P AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 5594/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G.K. DHARMENDRA,
S/O LATE KRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
2.
SRI. THIPPESHAPPA,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
GARAGA VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C.A. AJITH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. G.T. UMAPATHI,
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57870
WP No. 5264 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5594 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010112592025
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT GARAGA VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE UNDER 226(3)
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 01.04.2024 IN M.A.NO. 13/2023
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
CHANNAGIRI THEREBY DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY
THE DEFENDANTS / PETITIONERS IS AT ANNX-N AND
CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 05.06.2023
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
CHANNAGIRI IN O.S.NO. 45/2021 ON IA NO. 1 FILED BY
THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IS
AT ANNX-L AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
W.P. No.5594/2025 is filed challenging the order dated
01.04.2024 passed in M.A. No.13/2023, whereby the order
dated 05.06.2023 passed in O.S. No.45/2021, restraining the
defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property, was confirmed.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57870
WP No. 5264 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5594 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010112592025
2. W.P. No.5264/2025 is filed challenging the order dated
12.02.2025 passed in O.S. No.45/2021, whereby I.A. No.5 filed
by the plaintiff came to be allowed, directing the police to
provide protection for the implementation of the order dated
05.06.2023.
3. Since the impugned orders in both these writ petitions
arise out of the same original suit, the writ petitions are taken
up together for consideration and are disposed of by this
common order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that O.S.
No.145/2009 was instituted seeking partition, which culminated
in the passing of a final decree in F.D.P. No.5/2010. It is
submitted that the petitioners have rights in the suit schedule
property. O.S. No.145/2009 was instituted among the brothers
and sisters, and the decree was obtained in collusion.
4.1 It is further submitted that the petitioners are in
possession of the suit schedule property and, asserting their
rights under an unregistered partition deed dated 11.03.2003,
have instituted O.S. No.57/2025 seeking partition, wherein the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57870
WP No. 5264 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5594 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010112592025
suit schedule property also forms one of the items of the suit
schedule.
4.2 It is contended that both the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court, without considering these aspects, have
erroneously restrained the defendants from interfering with the
petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property.
5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the suit schedule property was allotted to the
share of the plaintiff pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.
No.145/2009 and the demarcation carried out in F.D.P.
No.5/2010. Thereafter, a registered partition deed dated
05.11.2020 was executed.
5.1 It is submitted that the unregistered partition deed dated
11.03.2003 has neither been proved nor acted upon by the
parties. It is further submitted that the decree passed in O.S.
No.145/2009 has not been challenged.
5.2 Learned counsel further submits that the suit schedule
property constitutes a road and that, unless the petitioners are
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57870
WP No. 5264 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5594 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010112592025
restrained by an order of injunction, the respondent would
suffer irreparable loss and prejudice.
6. Considered the submission made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the impugned order.
7. The respondent herein instituted O.S. No.45/2021
seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit
schedule property, which is land measuring 5 guntas. Though
the petitioners herein contend that the suit schedule property
comprises a residential house, the schedule does not indicate
the existence of any such house. Learned counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, submits that the suit schedule
property constitutes a road.
8. The respondent asserts his rights over the suit schedule
property on the basis of the decree passed in O.S. No.145/2009
and the proceedings in F.D.P. No.5/2010. It is alleged that O.S.
No.145/2009 was decreed as a result of collusion among the
parties thereto, who are the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff
herein. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein were not
impleaded as parties to the said suit.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57870
WP No. 5264 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5594 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010112592025
9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,
though both the Courts below have restrained the defendants
from interfering with the suit schedule property, permitting
either party to alter the nature of the property during the
pendency of O.S. No.45/2021 may lead to multiplicity of
proceedings. Having regard to the description of the property in
the schedule, it prima facie appears to be vacant land. No
prejudice would be caused to either party if an order directing
maintenance of the status quo in respect of the suit schedule
property is passed pending disposal of the suits.
10. Accordingly, the following:
O R D E R
I. W.P. Nos. 5264/2025 and 5594/2025 are allowed in part .
II. The order dated 01.04.2024 passed in M.A. No.13/2023
and the order dated 05.06.2023 passed in O.S.
No.45/2021 are modified , directing both parties to
maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule
property until disposal of O.S. No.45/2021.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57870
WP No. 5264 of 2025
C/W WP No. 5594 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010112592025
III. In view of the modification of the interim order sought to
be enforced through police protection, the order dated
12.02.2025 passed in O.S. No.45/2021 cannot survive and
is accordingly set aside .
IV. The suit has been pending since 2021, and it is submitted
that the matter is at the stage of recording the evidence of
the parties. In view of the direction to both parties to
maintain status quo , the Trial Court is requested to
expedite the trial and dispose of the suit at the earliest.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6