Karnataka High Court
Kanakappa And Ors vs Shivappa Jadidar & Ors on 27 June, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
ON THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.208481 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. KANAKAPPA
S/O TONDEPPA HARIJAN
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. YAMANAPPA
S/O TONDEPPA HARIJAN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
3. SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O KANAKAPPA HARIJAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
4. RAMANNA
S/O KANAKAPPA HARIJAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL RESIDENT OF HARIJANKERI
AT TORANADINNI VILLAGE
TALUK: MANVI, DISTRICT: RAICHUR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SHIVAPPA JADIDAR
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. HANUMANTHAPPA JADIDAR
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
3. JADIYAPPA JADIDAR
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KURUBAR ONI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK S. KINAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 05.12.2017 PASSED IN M.A.NO.50 OF 2014 BY THE FIRST
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAICHUR, SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.08.2014 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.170
OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RAICHUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-H, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, injunction and alternative relief of possession. An application seeking temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. The same was rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed. The appeal was allowed. An injunction was granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by the defendants.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appellate court committed an error in passing the order. The material on record has not been properly considered.
3. The same is disputed by the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition. The trial Court was of the view that based on the record of rights standing in the name of plaintiff No.1 and also the 4 loan availed by them by mortgaging the suit schedule properties would clearly show that the possession of the property is with the plaintiffs. As many as thirteen documents were produced with regard to possession. Therefore, the appellate court was of the view that based on the documents and the plea set out by the plaintiffs it cannot be said that they are not in a possession. The plea of the defendants to the contrary was negated. Injunction was granted based on the material produced by the plaintiffs.
5. Under these circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain the petition. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu CT-RRJ