Sri.V.Ashwath Reddy v. Sri.Papanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 29295 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI.V.ASHWATH REDDY S/O LATE. VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.102, RAMAIAH REDDY COMPOUND, 8TH CROSS, KODIHALLI, HALASURU POST, H.A.L. 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE -560008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1SRI.PAPANNA S/O LAGE. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT HULIKUNTE VILLAGE, D.PALYA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANNAKKI UDAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GOWRIBIDANUR IN MA NO. 5/2026.

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.A. Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sannakki Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶2The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 11.08.2026 passed in M.A. No.5/2026. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No.36/2026 seeking the relief of injunction, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). The trial Court, by order dated 24.02.2026, allowed the said application and restrained the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC, wherein the First Appellate Court, by the impugned order, set aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court on 24.02.2026.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the property in question during the pendency of the partition suit in O.S. No.79/2013, wherein the vendor is arrayed as defendant No.4. It is submitted that the total extent of the property involved in the partition suit is 5 acres 20 guntas, whereas the purchase made by the petitioner is only to an extent of 1 acre 1.08 guntas. It is further submitted that, even if the partition suit is decreed, the extent of land purchased by the petitioner would be confined to the share of the vendor. It is also submitted that an order of status quo is operating in O.S. No.79/2013 and, therefore, a similar order may be passed in the present case.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent submits that the purchase made by the petitioner was during the pendency of the suit and in violation of the interim order then in operation. It is submitted that, when the sale deed itself is invalid, the question of granting an injunction against the respondent does not arise. However, learned counsel fairly submits that, in O.S. No.79/2013, the petitioner has been impleaded as a defendant and that the

interim order of status quo operating therein would equally bind the petitioner herein.

¶5Considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶6The aforesaid events are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the property in question during the pendency of the partition suit in O.S. No.79/2013 from defendant No.4 therein. The total extent of the property involved in the partition suit is 5 acres 20 guntas, whereas the extent purchased by the petitioner is only 1 acre 1.08 guntas.

¶7The First Appellate Court, in paragraph No.25, has recorded that the purchase made during the pendency of the litigation would not, by itself, render the transaction invalid. However, the rights of the purchaser would be confined to the share ultimately declared in favour of the vendor in the pending partition suit. Even if the purchase is made during the pendency of the suit and in violation of the interim order, any share that may not ultimately be allotted to defendant No.4 therein would enure to the benefit of the plaintiff. As rightly

submitted, in view of the interim order of status quo operating in the partition suit, the same would equally apply to the present case in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶8In that view, the following: O R D E R

(i) The order dated 11.08.2026 is hereby set aside.

(ii) The order dated 24.02.2026 in O.S. No.36/2026 is

confirmed. However, the same is modified directing

both the parties to maintain status quo insofar as

possession and entitlement, till the disposal of O.S.

No.79/2013.

(iii) O.S. No.79/2013 is a suit for partition and, even

after more than 13 years, is still at the stage of

recording the evidence of the plaintiffs. This Court

finds no justifiable reason for such an inordinate

delay in the progress of the suit. The trial Court is,

therefore, directed to dispose of O.S. No.79/2013

expeditiously.

Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36