- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3003 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. INDU SHEKAR KOLLURI S/O LATE K. MOHAN NAIDU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.1-150, SRI. GOWRI MANOHARA NILAYAM, BANGARUMITTA, NEAR 200 FT. BY PASS ROAD, AVILALA POST, TIRUPATI ROAD, CHITTOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 507. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINAYAKA B. VISHNU BATTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE BANGALORE CITY CHICKPET HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KV TEMPLE STREET, BANGALORE - 560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 . MR. K. GANGAPPA S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT EREHALLI VILLAGE, YALLUDU HOBLI, Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 209. 3 . NARASIMREDDY S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A EREHALLI VILLAGE, YALLUDU HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 209. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. T. PARAMESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:30.01.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.1 2 AND 3 IN OS.NO.1811/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NOS 1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND REJECTING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.02.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 25.02.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 07.03.2025 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant defendant No.4 under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC for setting aside the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, in O.S. No.1811/2021, for granting injunction against the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.1. 3. The appellant was defendant No.4 and respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and other respondents were defendant No.1 and 2 respectively before the trial Court. The rank of the parties before the trial court is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the respondent No.1-plaintiff before the trial Court is that the plaintiff - M/s. The Bangalore City Chickpet House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'Society') filed a suit by contending that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property, having more than 4000 members, and are into purchasing of lands and forming layouts and distributing sites to their members. Accordingly, the plaintiff purchased property bearing Sy.No.40 measuring 1 Acre situated at Harohalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore from defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 07.01.2005. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Mutation was not effected in the name of the plaintiff since there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Defendant No.1 had alienated some of the sites in the said property to third parties which need to be cleared for which they had not got the title of the property transferred in their name. Defendants No.2 and 3 claiming as original legal heirs of the vendor’s vendor of the defendant No.1 are said to have had initiated revenue proceedings and got the khata of the schedule property changed in their name without making 1st defendant as party and challenging the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 same. The 1st defendant’s vendor Mr. Krishnamurthy had filed a Writ Petition No.24001/2014. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in order to forgo any further litigation have illegally alienated the suit property, during the pendency of the writ petition. Defendant No.4 with ulterior motive based on the revenue entries has got the property transferred in his name illegally, and now trying to interfere with peaceful possession of the plaintiff’s property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit. Along with the suit, an I.A. was filed by the plaintiff for injunction. The trial court granted ad interim injunction. Later, the defendant No.4 appeared and filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the interim order. Finally, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by defendant No.4 and confirmed the injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.4 is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4 has contended that the plaintiff does not have any right - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 over the property. The defendant No.4 claims the title through one Shyama Rao and Sanjeev Rao, who sold the property to Muni Reddy on 03.11.1948. Till 1991, the name of Muni Reddy was continued in the revenue records. Later, once again, it was restored under MR/2/2011-12. Subsequently, one Nagappa Reddy, the son of Muni Reddy, succeeded the property and thereafter, the property was devolved to his daughter defendant No.3-Muddamma vide MR No. H5/2015-16 dated 25.04.2014, as Nagappa Reddy's son Hanumantha Reddy died bachelor. The said Muddamma also expired and the said property was agreed to sell to defendant No.4 under an agreement of sale dated 22.04.2016. Thereafter, the regular sale deed was effected on 09.09.2020 by the children of defendant No.3 i.e. defendant No.2 and his sister Shankaramma. The learned counsel further contended that the Plaintiff claims property through one to K. Chinnappa who was said to be sold the property to Krishnamurthy on 15.02.1962, vide MR No.8/1991-92 dated 21.05.1992. Thereafter, the property - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 was sold to defendant No.1 - K. Gangappa on 02.04.2004. Later, the property was sold to plaintiff on 07.01.2005. It is contended that the title of the appellant-defendant's property was traced from the year 1948, whereas the title of plaintiff's property was traced from the year 1962. The plaintiff was not at all given any possession of the schedule property as there is dispute between defendant No.1 and plaintiff and no revenue records were filed to show that is name mutated in respect of schedule property. 6. It is further contended that the title of the appellant-defendant No.4 is traced from 1948, whereas, the plaintiff's title is from 1962 onwards. There is no prima facie case made out in favour of the plaintiff. There is no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff created documents though not in possession but obtained an order of injunction. Defendant No.4 is in possession of the schedule property. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent- plaintiff has supported the order of the trial court contending that suit schedule property belongs to Krishnamurthy purchased on 15.02.1962. Thereafter, it was sold to defendant No.1-Gangappa on 02.04.2004. In turn, the plaintiff purchased the said property on 07.01.2005 from defendant No.1, who sold the sites to various purchasers on different dates from 2006 onwards. Such being the case, defendant No.4 is trying to interfere with a suit schedule property. He has purchased the said property from defendant Nos.2 and Shankaramma, who is the daughter of defendant No.3 sold the Property was on 09.09.2020. Defendant No.3 claimed the property as ancestral property. The trial Court, after considering the documents, has rightly granted injunction as against defendants. There is no need to interfere with the said order. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. 8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 9. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the plaintiff has made out prima facie case that it is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ? (ii) Whether defendant No.4 is trying to interfere with the schedule property ? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is put into hardship and irreparable loss, if injunction is not granted? (iv) Whether the order of the trial court calls for interference ? 10. On perusal of the records, especially, the contention of the appellant-defendant No.4 is that he is said to be purchased the schedule property from the legal heirs of defendant No.3-Muddamma, i.e. defendant No.2 and Shankaramma-the daughter of defendant No.3, on 09.09.2020 based upon the agreement of sale dated 22.04.2016. It is the further contention of the appellant that is originally, the land in Sy.No.40 belonged to one Muni Reddy, who has purchased the same under sale deed - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 dated 03.11.1948 and the said Muni Reddy was none other than the grandfather of defendant No.3. Subsequent to the death of Muni Reddy, his only son Nagappa Reddy @ Nagappa succeeded the said property. Nagappa Reddy had two children namely Hanumantha Reddy @ Hanumanthappa and defendant No.3- Muddamma, the daughter. The said Hanumanthappa, was a bachelor, who said to be died on 18.06.1986 and thereby, defendant No.3 became the sole legal heir who succeeded the property as absolute owner of the schedule property. The revenue records to the extent of 2 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.40 of Harohalli village stood in the name of defendant No.3-Muddamma and it was in exclusive possession of defendant No.3 and after her death after her death her children, i.e. Narasimha Reddy (Defendant No.2) and Shankaramma, who are the children of muddamma were in possession of Suit Schedule Property. 11. During the life time of defendant No.3- Muddamma, she had sold the entire land in survey No.40 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 of Harohalli village to defendant No.4 under agreement of sale dated 22.04.2016 and an irrevocable registered GPA was executed by defendant No.3 and defendant No.2 and Shanakaramma, the daughter of defendant No.3, which was coupled with interest and also delivered the possession of the property. The entire sale consideration was paid by defendant No.4 and obtained possession of the suit schedule property under the agreement of sale in the year 2016 itself. The son of muddamma i.e. defendant No.2 and his sister Shankaramma (who is not party to the suit) had duly consented for the same. On the demise of defendant No.3-Muddamma, who died intestate, her children second defendant and one shankramma inherited the property and from them the forth defendant No.4 obtained the title of the said property under the regular sale deed dated 09.09.2020. 12. Defendant No.4 approached the revenue authority and got mutated his name from defendant No.2 and his sister Shankaramma and he is in exclusive - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 possession of the schedule property. In support of his contentions, defendant No.4 has produced documents before the trial court. Per contra, the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that it has purchased schedule property i.e .1 acre of land in survey No.40 in Harohalli village from one Gangappa-defendant No.1 on 07.01.2005. The said Gangappa said to be purchased the property from his vendor Krishnamurthy on 02.04.2004. It is stated that the said Krishnamurthy purchased schedule property from one Chinnappa for 15.02.1962. The plaintiff has not produced any document to show that Chinnappa was the owner and having title over the schedule property in order to sell the same to Krishnamurthy on 15.02.1962. The plaintiff has produced only the sale deed of Gangappa dated 02.04.2004 purchased from Krishnamurthy. There is no mother deed produced by the plaintiff in order to show that Chinnappa was the absolute owner having title over the suit schedule property in order to alienate to Krishnamurthy in the year 1962. Subsequent to the purchase by Krishnamurthy, he - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 has sold the same to defendant No.1 - Gangappa. Immediately, within a year, the said Gangappa defendant No.1 sold the property to the plaintiff-Society. The plaintiff, without considering and verifying the original title deed of the land in question, purchased the property, based upon the sale deed of Krishnamurthy. No other documents or any revenue records were produced before the trial court to show that the said land was purchased by Krishnamurthy in the year 1962 and also to show that the possession was continued in his name till 1992. 13. It is in the year 1992, Krishnamurthy said to have tried to obtain records in 1992 as per MR No.8/1991- 92 that too after the purchase of property from Gangappa. There is no document to show for flowing of title or possession from the vendor of Chinnappa and there is no document to show that Krishnamurthy was in possession of the property from 1962 to 1992 for almost 30 years. Subsequent to the change of name of Gangappa the first Defendant from Krishnamurthy, defendant No.3 - - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 Muddamma filed an application before the Tahsildar and got mutated in her name. Subsequently, the plaintiff approached Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal against the mutating the name of the plaintiff which came to be dismissed and the plaintiff also filed a revision petition before Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act which also came to be dismissed. The writ petition is said to be filed before the High Court by the plaintiff's vendor's vendor Krishnamurthy. Therefore, claiming the property by the plaintiff from its vendor defendant No.1-Gangappa and his vendor Krishnamurthy is not acceptable at this stage. The plaintiff has also not produced any records to show that its vendors were continued to be in possession from 1962 till 1992. Even after the purchase of the Property by the plaintiff, the Revenue records were not transferred in the name of the Plaintiff. 14. On the other hand the title of the defendant No.4 is traced from 1948 from Muni Reddy vide sale date - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 dated 03.11.1948. After the death of Muni Reddy, the property devolved on his only son Nagappa Reddy and after death of Nagappa Reddy, his two children Hanumantha Reddy and defendant No.3-Muddamma succeeded to the schedule property. Hanumantha Reddy died in the year 1986 and he was bachelor and issueless. Therefore, defendant No.3-Muddamma became the absolute owner of the schedule property of Muni Reddy measuring 2 acres 12 guntas. The said Muddamma continued to be in possession along with her children from 1986 onwards and she executed an irrevocable GPA and an agreement of sale on 22.04.2016 in favour of defendant No.4. Subsequently, the children of Muddamma Defendant No.2 and his sister have executed regular sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 on 09.09.2020. Mutation also stands in the name of defendant No.4/the appellant, which was challenged by the plaintiff's vendor, but they failed, which clearly reveals that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff in order to show that it is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 property from 2005 onwards. The plaintiff has not produced title deed of the Vendor's vendor Chinnappa as to how he became the owner of the property, which is not known to them. Therefore, when the title documents and revenue records are not produced, the question of flowing title and possession to the plaintiff does not arise. On the other hand, the defendant No.4 is able to show that he is in possession of schedule property by way of sale deed, having purchased from the successor of Muni Reddy, the Munni Reddy the said Muni Reddy purchased the property of 2 acres and 12 guntas in the year 1948 itself. Such being the case, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property cannot be acceptable. 15. That apart, it is also stated by the plaintiff’s counsel that defendant No.4 had sold some sites. The revenue records were not transferred to the plaintiff’s name. Such being the case, the question of claiming possession over the property by the plaintiff is not - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 acceptable one. When defendant No.4 is in possession of the schedule property under the regular sale deed and prior to that an agreement of sale and irrevocable GPA executed by defendant No.3, in 2016 itself and she was the successor of Muni Reddy. Hence, the balance of convenience not lies in favour of plaintiffs rather the balance of convenience is in favour of defendant No.4. 16. As regards to hardship and irreparable loss, defendant No.4 is able to show that he is in possession of the schedule property and his vendors were the original owners of the property purchased in the year 1948 and show title from 1948. and obtained the title 1948. The revenue records also stood in the name of defendant No.3 and thereafter, in the name of defendant No.4. The revenue records reveal the presumption of possession in favour of defendant No.4 as per Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, if injunction is not granted, no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 whereas irreparable loss would be caused to the appellant- defendant No.4. 17. Therefore, considering the evidence on record and the documents produced by both parties, I am of the view that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the documents on record and has simply stated that the matter is required for full-fledged trial. when, the sale deed produced by the plaintiff itself does not confirm the right over the property when the title of the vendor's vendor is not produced. Therefore, the matter definitely requires full-fledged trial, but for the granting any relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. the available material placed on record does not make out prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial court has wrongly held that there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, when in the suit filed for declaration and injunction, the defendant is able to show that he is in possession. The plaintiff is required to seek possession also. Therefore, when the possession is with defendant - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 No.4, the question of granting injunction in favour of plaintiff does not arise. Therefore, on this ground, the order of the trial court is required to be interfered. 18. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the plaintiff has failed to show prima facie case and the balance of convenience in its favour and it has also failed to show the interference of the appellant- defendant No.4 over the schedule property. On the other hand, the appellant-defendant is able to show that he is in possession over the schedule property and title flowing from his vendors. Such being the case, the revenue records also stands in the name of appellant-defendant No.4. Therefore, the question of granting injunction in favour of plaintiff does not arise. The possession over the schedule property is also not sought by the plaintiff in the suit. Therefore, the order of the trial court is perverse and capricious and is liable to be set aside. 19. Accordingly, I pass the following order : (i) The appeal is allowed. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:9868 MFA No. 3003 of 2024 (ii) The order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, in O.S. No.1811/2021, for granting injunction against the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, is here by set aside and the application of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE CS CT:SK