- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15312 MFA No. 1761 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1761 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JANAKAMMA W/O LATE H SHAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SMT. PREMA D/O LATE H SHAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SMT. SHANTHA RAJAMMA D/O LATE H SHAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 4. SRI.S. PRASHANTH KUMAR S/O LATE H SHAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NOW ALL RESIDING AT NO. 682, APPA AMMA NILAYA, 2ND BLOCK, PEENYA 1ST STAGE, PEENYA, BENGALURU – 560 058. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SAMPATH A, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. DINESH.R S/O SRI D RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.2892, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15312 MFA No. 1761 of 2025 14TH MAIN, ‘E’ BLOCK, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL ROAD 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.N.SHANKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.6967/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CCH-14 DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 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 plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6967/2018 by XXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14), thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15312 MFA No. 1761 of 2025 registered General Power of Attorney dated 09.01.1997 and thereafter, obtained katha in his favour and paying taxes and betterment charges and further he obtained electricity and water connections to the suit property. Thus, in this way, the plaintiff is claiming title over the suit property. 3. On the other hand, the defendant has stated that the land bearing Sy.No.1/2, on which, the site formed was acquired along with other lands in other survey numbers from HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society for formation of layout and accordingly, HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society has formed layout and allotted the sites in favour of its members and the defendant is claiming title through HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society through the registered sale deed dated 23.11.2017. Thus, in this way, the defendant is claiming title through the said registered sale deed by the HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15312 MFA No. 1761 of 2025 4. When this being the fact, at the most, the plaintiffs are claiming title over the property through the General Power of Attorney holder. Furthermore, it is alleged that there were irregularities and illegalities by the then office bearers of the Society and have randomly allotted the sites and even some other sites, which are not in existence. In this way, one of the office bearers of the Society had executed General Power of Attorney to the vendor of the plaintiff. 5. Under these circumstances, the trial Court on considering this case had formed opinion that there is no prima facie case. Accordingly, dismissed the application filed for temporary injunction. 6. However, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs had obtained katha, taxes and betterment charges are paid. Thus, they are claiming their possession. But the plaintiffs are claiming only through General Power of Attorney. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15312 MFA No. 1761 of 2025 dismissing the application as the plaintiffs have no prima facie case. 7. Admittedly, the suit property is a vacant site. Therefore, it is appropriate to give direction to both the parties to maintain status-quo pending disposal of the suit in regard to possession as on today and status-quo order is also to the effect not to change the nature of land till the disposal of the suit. However, it is directed to the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 8. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of. In view of disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and it is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37