BALABHEEM S/O. ANNAJI KULKARNI, vs RAMACHANDRA S/O. GANESH KULKARNI,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16568
WP No. 106258 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020164832025



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.106258 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:











BALABHEEM S/O. ANNAJI KULKARNI,
AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BEKKERI, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. ANAND KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. RAMACHANDRA S/O. GANESH KULKARNI,
AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/ADVOCATE,
R/O. NEAR BUS STAND, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.

2. VIJAY S/O. GANESH KULKARNI,
AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BEKKERI NEAR BUS STAND, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
…RESPONDENTS







Digitally signed
by BHARATHI
H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.10.15
14:52:54
+0530


(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 02-06-2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT RAIBAG IN MA NO.20/2024 IA NO.I AS AT ANNEXURE-G, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16568
WP No. 106258 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020164832025


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

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

ORAL ORDER


1. Petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.1216/2024 is
before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated
02.06.2025 passed in M.A.No.20/2024 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag. In terms of which, the First
Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the
plaintiffs/respondents herein has restrained defendant/
petitioner herein from interfering with the plaintiffs’ right to
use and enjoy the suit Well water to an extent of his
portion by disconnecting the water supply or from causing
any damage to the water pipeline, electric motor, till
disposal of the suit.

2. The above suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents
herein against the defendant/petitioner herein for relief of
permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that
land in Sy.No.262/2 originally measures 8 acres 20 guntas
out of which they are the owners in possession of land

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16568
WP No. 106258 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020164832025


bearing Sy.No.262/2 to an extent of 4 acres 10 guntas, the
same having been inherited through his ancestors and the
remaining 4 acres 10 guntas belong to the defendant.

3. That there is a common Well located in the said land in
R.S.No.262/2, which is being utilized by both the plaintiffs
and the defendant to grow sugarcane in their respective
lands for over 35 years and both the plaintiffs and the
defendant have respectively installed electricity connection
as well as the water pump and drawing water continuously.

4. However, the defendant with an ulterior intention posed
threat to the plaintiffs from drawing water from the said
common Well without having any right to interfere
constraining the plaintiffs to approach the Court by filing
the said suit.

5. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of CPC came to be filed seeking ad-interim
order of injunction. However, the said application was
rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.11.2024, as
against which plaintiff preferred aforesaid M.A.No.20/2024,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16568
WP No. 106258 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020164832025


which has been allowed by the impugned order as noted
above.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that
there has been no common well as claimed by the
plaintiffs. The well which is shown in the suit belongs to the
petitioner/defendant exclusively. That the plaintiffs and
other members of the family had filed a collusive suit in
O.S.No.49/2018 and a compromise was entered into, to
which the defendant/petitioner herein was not a party.

7. Based on the said collusive compromise decree, plaintiffs
are claiming well to be the common well. That the Trial
Court had rightly appreciated the matter while declining
the interim order, which the First Appellate Court has
reversed. The interim order has caused hardship to the
defendant/petitioner herein. Hence, seeks for allowing the
petition.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs/respondents drawing attention of this Court to the
RTC extracts for the years 1996-1997 to 2017-2018

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16568
WP No. 106258 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020164832025


submits that the land in Sy.No.262/1 and 262/2 belong to
the plaintiffs and the defendant respectively and in both
the RTC’s the source of water is shown as a well and there
is only one well situated in the entire Sy.No.262 and there
is no other well. That despite production of this document,
the Trial Court had declined to grant the interim order,
which the First Appellate Court had set it right.

9. He also refers to paragraph No.23 of the impugned order
and submits that the First Appellate Court has taken note
of these revenue entries found in the RTC extracts of the
respective parties and has come to right conclusion of
there existing a common well, from which both the
plaintiffs and the defendant are drawing water with
separate electricity connections. Hence, seeks for dismissal
of the petition.

10. Heard. Perused the records.

11. At paragraph No.29 of its order dated 19.11.2024, the Trial
Court order has observed as under:

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16568
WP No. 106258 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020164832025


“29. After perusing the ROR's it appears that plaintiff
and defendants are relatives and enjoying the suit Well
commonly till today and in ROR column No.13 its shows
that there is existence of Well. But plaintiff not
produced sufficient documents to prove that how he is
entitle and where the said well is existence.”


12. Thus, the Trial Court has also found existence of a well
commonly used by plaintiffs and the defendant. However,
has made a further observation that the plaintiffs have not
produced sufficient document to prove how they are
entitled to the said well and where the said well exists.

13. First Appellate Court at paragraph No.23 of its order dated
02.06.2025 has held as under:
“23. It is evident that as per RTC extract of RS
No.262/1 of the year 1996 to 2002, which is measuring
4.15 Acres, reveals that the revenue authority has
entered in column No.8 of the said ROR that there is
existence of the Well and growing sugarcane and other
crops, which is standing in the name of defendant, as
per the copy of the RTC RS No.262/2 measuring 4.15
Acres of the year 1996 to 2002 which is standing in the
name of present plaintiff No.1 and 2, which reveals that
the revenue authority has entered in column No.8 that
as a Well is situated and growing sugarcane crop etc.,
the RTC of the year 2014-15, 2016-17, of RS No. 262/2
are standing in the name of plaintiff No.1 and 2 and in
column No.8 of the said RTCs, the revenue authority


has entered as Well ( ) is situated and growing
sugarcane crop etc., As per the certificate issued by the
Village Accountant dtd:24-7-2024 reveals that the
Village Accountant of Bekkeri village, he visited the
property RS No.262/2, and after local inspection of
property RS No.262/2, he has issued a certificate
stating that in property RS No.262/2 a Well is situated
and said property is belonging to the plaintiff No.1. As

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16568
WP No. 106258 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020164832025


per the photographs produced by the plaintiffs reveals
that a electricity connection has been provided to the
irrigation pump set no. BKR-IP305, the electricity bills
produced by the plaintiffs reveals that the plaintiff No.1
has paid electricity charges bills in respect of the said
electricity connection irrigation pump set No. BKR-
IP305, which is said to have been situated in the
property RS No.262/2. Thus, prima facie upon perusal
of the said documents, it appears to the court that in
property RS No.262/2 which is belonging to the
plaintiffs a Well is situated and the plaintiffs are paying
electricity charges in respect of the irrigation pump set,
which is installed in the said Well.”


14. Thus, though the Trial Court has taken note of the
existence of a well shown in the revenue records, has
refused to grant the interim relief merely because the
plaintiffs have not shown the location.

15. The First Appellate Court has adverted to this aspect of the
matter as noted above and has come to the prima facie
conclusion with regard to existence of a common well
being used by the plaintiffs and the defendant.

16. Since the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court
have given concurrent prima facie finding of existence of
the well in Sy.No.262 and pursuant to which the First
Appellate Court has restrained the defendant from causing
any interference or obstructing the plaintiffs drawing the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16568
WP No. 106258 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020164832025


water from the said well, this Court at this juncture do not
find any ground for interference.

17. However, it is made clear such finding and conclusion
arrived at by the First Appellate Court shall be treated as a
prima facie finding for the purpose of interim relief.

18. Parties are at liberty to prove and justify their respective
cases as pleaded in the written statement.

19. The Trial Court shall proceed without being influenced by
the orders passed on the interim applications.

20. Petition is accordingly disposed of .

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


EM:SH
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27