- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15732 MFA No. 1241 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1241 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: H.NARAYANA REDDY SON OF LATE P HANUMAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS OLD, R/A NO.272, 7TH CROSS, CHIKKA BANASWADI, NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S DVA ASSOCIATES) AND: 1. B.ANUSUYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O. VENKATESH B R/AT NO.321/21, 4TH CROSS, CHIKKABANASWADI, MARUTHISEVANAGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 043. 2. VENKATESH.B AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. BUDDA REDDY R/AT NO.321/21, 4TH CROSS, CHIKKABANASWADI, MARUTHISEVANAGARA POST, BENGALURU - 560 043. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15732 MFA No. 1241 of 2025 3. M/S. YD BUILDERS HAVING OFFICE AT NO.229/2A, 3RD CROSS, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, MR. SRINIVAS REDDY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH.N.R, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR R3; SRI. M.S. MANJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.24.01.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.4483/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, (CCH NO.11), DISMISSING IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in OS.No.4483/2024 dated 24.01.2025 by VI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15732 MFA No. 1241 of 2025 Bengaluru City (CCCH.11), thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction stating that he is the owner of suit schedule property to the extent of East to West 25 feet and North to South 45 feet, totally measuring 1125 sq.ft. The appellant also made an application for an order of temporary injunction. The defendants have filed the statement of objection for the above said application. 3. The trial Court while considering the prima facie case made out by the plaintiff has observed that Bhagyamma who is the wife of the plaintiff has sold the property measuring 1600 sq.ft., whereas she has purchased the property through the sale deed dated 22.08.1979 measuring 554 sq.ft., only. The sale deed dated 29.12.2010 was executed by one Manjunatha in favour of plaintiff’s wife Bhagyamma measuring 4714.25 sq.ft., and on the same day, another sale deed measuring - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15732 MFA No. 1241 of 2025 7947.50 sq.ft., and another sale deed measuring 1005 sq.ft., in all total measuring 13,666.55 sq.ft., which is more than the measurement shown in the sale deed dated 22.08.1979. 4. Therefore, the trial Court had observed that the series of sale transactions through sale deeds, the plaintiff by taking advantage of non-mentioning of survey number or site number, but only extent and boundaries is increasing through three sale deeds, but upon perusal of the sale deed of the year 1972, the original extent of land was 955 sq.ft. Therefore, the sale deed executed by Bhagyamma is more than what she was having through her vendor. Therefore, Manjunath vendor of the plaintiff has no right to execute sale deed since he has not got any property to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in dismissing the application filed for temporary injunction. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15732 MFA No. 1241 of 2025 5. Further the plaintiff has suppressed the fact, which is also one of the reasons that the trial Court has dismissed the application. Therefore, the order does not suffer from any perversity as the plaintiff fails to make out prima facie case and also for the reason that the suit is filed only for permanent injunction. If at all, the plaintiff is claiming that he is the owner of the property and if there is any overlapping of property and if the plaintiff is the owner of land, then for such disputed fact, the suit ought to have been filed for a declaration, but did not file. Therefore, there is no perversity found in the order. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39