- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12728 MFA No. 1754 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1754/2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. R. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O LATE RANGANATH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO.134, OMBR LAYOUT (ABBAIAH REDDY LAYOUT) 4TH CROSS, BANASWADI BANGALORE-560 043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LAKAMA PURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. K.M. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O Y. MUNIRAJU AND SMT. PADMA @ PADAMAMMA R/O NO.50, KARAYARRAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE B.K.HALLI POST, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-562 149. 2. SMT. VASANTHA .C W/O LATE JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.55, 1ST A CROSS CHIKKALASANDRA CANARA BANK COLONY UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE-560081. 3. MISS. MEGA J. D/O LATE JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12728 MFA No. 1754 of 2025 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.55, 1ST 'A' CROSS CHIKKALASANDRA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI CANARA BANK COLONY BANGALORE-560081. 4. MISS. SNEHA J. D/O LATE JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.55, 1ST 'A' CROSS CHIKKALASANDRA, CANARA BANK COLONY UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE-560 081. 5. SRI. DEVENDRA C.H. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O N. HANUMANTHA REDDY PRESENTLY R/O NO.255/21 1ST CROSS, LAL BAHADUR NAGAR, B. CHANNASANDRA EXTENSION BENGALURU-560 040. 6. SRI. PUNEETH K.V. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O K.C. VENKATARONAPPA R/O NO.322, 7TH 'A' MAIN 1ST BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 043. 7. SRI. VINAY K.R. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O RAMAIAH R. R/O NO.90/3, KALKERE HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU-560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADV., FOR R5) - - - THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.8418/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-8, DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12728 MFA No. 1754 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order passed on I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 passed in O.S.No.8418/2023 wherein the application filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the joint owners of the schedule A and B properties by virtue of Will dated 22.07.2020 and for consequential reliefs. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the wife and children of deceased Jagannath. Defendant No.5 had purchased the suit schedule properties from defendant Nos.2 to 4 by virtue of sale deed dated 01.04.2023. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that defendant No.2 being the wife of Jagannath and defendant Nos.3 and 4 being the daughters of Jagannath, harassed, coerced and forced Jagannath to make a release deed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, it is submitted that the release deed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12728 MFA No. 1754 of 2025 executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is by fraud and coercion and in this regard, the same is reflected in the Will stated to have been executed by Jagannath in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1. 3. Considering all these facts, there are disputes between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5. The plaintiff is claiming title through the Will whereas defendant No.5 is claiming title through registered sale deed. Therefore, defendant No.5 who has purchased the properties, has started construction which is almost at the verge of completion. Therefore, it is prima facie proved that defendant No.5 is in possession of the properties. Therefore, when there is dispute regarding title and prima facie it is shown that defendant No.5 is in possession, hence, the Trial Court is correct in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff. However, the Trial Court observed in the impugned order that Jagannath could not have executed the Will and the plaintiff claim of ownership is weak. This observation by the Trial Court is unwarranted. Therefore, the said observation is expunged. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12728 MFA No. 1754 of 2025 4. Since there is a rival dispute between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 based on the Will and release deed, respectively, and the defendant No.5 is claiming she has purchased schedule property by way of registered sale deed hence is in possession and constructing building, therefore, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17