- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15311 MFA No. 1762 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.1762 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JANAKAMMA W/O. LATE H. SHAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.463, 2ND BLOCK MUNIYAPPA BUILDING, PEENYA 1ST STAGE, PEENYA, BENGALURU - 560 056. 2. SRI. S. PRASHANTH KUMAR S/O SRI H SHAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.463, 2ND BLOCK MUNIYAPPA BUILDING, PEENYA 1ST STAGE, PEENYA, BENGALURU - 560 056. AND ALSO AT NO.515, SRINIVASA MENS WEAR, NEAR SREE ANJANESWAMY TEMPLE, 2ND BLOCK, PEENYA 1ST STAGE, PEENYA, BENGALURU – 560 058 3. SMT. S. PREMA D/O SRI H SHAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.B-56 SRI MANJUNATHA NILAYA, BHAHUBALI NAGAR, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15311 MFA No. 1762 of 2025 BEHIND JALAHALLI GOVT SCHOOL BENGALURU – 560 013. 4. SMT. SHANTHA RAJAMMA D/O SRI H SHAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.463, 2ND BLOCK MUIYAPPA BUILDING PEENYA 1ST STAGE PEENYA BENGALURU – 560 056 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. DINESH.R, S/O SRI D RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.2892 14TH MAIN, E BLOCK, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL ROAD 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.N.SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) 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.6517/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CCH-14 ALLOWING 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: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15311 MFA No. 1762 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The defendants 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.6517/2018 by XXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14), thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is allowed. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of 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. Here the defendants have stated that the defendants had purchased the suit property through HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society, whereas - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15311 MFA No. 1762 of 2025 the plaintiff’s claim is through General Power of Attorney. In this regard, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that his site is formed in the left out land. Therefore, the identity of the property by the plaintiff is in question. 4. Therefore, in this regard, when the defendants’ title is appearing through registered sale deed, therefore, the trial Court is correct in forming opinion that the plaintiff has formed prima facie case. Accordingly, the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court is found to be correct. Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendants is liable to be disposed of. 5. 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15311 MFA No. 1762 of 2025 Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 6. 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.: 38