In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Dated This the 31St Day of October, 2015 Before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.Narayan

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY M.F.A. NO.102002/2015 (CPC) BETWEEN 1. BASAPPA S/O. SIDALING TAKKANNAVAR AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BAD BYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 2. ANNAPPA S/O. BASAPPA TAKKANNAVAR AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ALAKNUR, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.V.M.SHEELVANT, SRI.S.H.MATTALKOD, SRI.VINJAY S.KOUJALAGI, SRI.M.L.VANTI & SMT.VIJAYALAXMI M.L., ADVOCATES) AND 1. SMT.MALLAVVA LAXMAN YADAHALLI AGE: 72 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BADABYAKUD TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 2. SIDDAPPA MALLAPPA KHAVATAKOPPA AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BADABYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 3. IRAPPA MALLAPPA KHAVATAKOPPA AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BADABYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 2 4. DUNDAPPA MALLAPPA KHAVATAKOPPA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BADABYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 5. SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA KHAVATAKOPPA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BADABYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 6. MURIGEPPA MALLAPPA KHAVATAKOPPA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BADABYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 7. SIDALING S/O GURUPAD TAKKANNAVAR AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BADABYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 8. SIDDAPPA S/O. SIDALING TAKKANAVAR AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. BADABYAKUD, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 9. SMT.BORAVVA W/O. SIDDAPPA SASALATTI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. KHEMALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 10. SMT.NEELAVVA W/O. MAHADEV PATIL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. ALAKHNUR, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI 11. SMT.BHAGAVVA W/O. BASAPPA KITTUR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK C/O. NEELAVVA W/O. MAHADEV PATIL R/O. KHEMALAPUR, TQ: RAIBAG DIST: BELAGAVI ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.P.MURARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 – HELD SUFFICIENT; R3 TO R10 – SERVED; R11 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) 3 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(R) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 09.07.2014, PASSED IN OS.NO.181/2013, ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RAIBAG, ALLOWING THE I.A.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 & 2 R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT I.A.No.2/2015 is allowed. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay of 275 days in filing appeal is condoned. 2. The petitioners have made an application in I.A.No.1/2015 for temporary injunction. The suit is filed between the parties for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff is the legal heir and she is in possession of the property. The defendant No.1 claims to be the adopted son of the father of the plaintiff, who has sold the property in favour of other defendants. The other defendants claim that they are in possession of the property since from the date of sale deed. 3. The grounds urged by the petitioners is that the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff against the purchaser of the property and defendants are 4 restrained from alienating or creating any encumbrances over the suit property till the disposal of the main suit. That itself shows their possession of the property. In this circumstance, the temporary injunction could not have been in favour of the plaintiff, since from time and again the action of the purchasers have been obstructed. When the civil dispute is pending between the parties and trial Court has passed the order in respect of the persons who are in possession of the properties, no materials are forth coming that either of the parties are in possession of the properties or they are entitled for any order. In this circumstances, I am not inclined to pass any order. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to make necessary application under CPC for necessary orders before the court below. If such application is filed, it is for the Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE Vnp*.

Load more