- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15078 WP No. 27480 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 27480 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. RAMANI M. SHETTY, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O MOHAN SHETTY, R/AT D.NO.5075, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, HEBBAL BADAVANE, MYSURU CITY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NISHANTH GOWDA @ REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE SWAMY GOWDA, NO.20, NEAR KARIYAPPA, FLOUR MILL, MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPAL, HEBBAL, MYSURU. 2. SRI. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, (DELTED VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2025) 3. SRI. PRAKASH M.C, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15078 WP No. 27480 of 2018 4. SRI. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.20, NEAR KARIYAPPA FLOUR MILL, MANCHEGOWDANA KOPPAL, HEBBAL, MYSURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.N. MADHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. M.R. SURYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2025, PETITION AGAINST R2 ABATED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2018 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, WHEREIN ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED THE M.A.NO.146/2017, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2017, PASSED ON I.A.NO.1, BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDL. IST CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT MYSURU, IN THE SUIT O.S.NO.923/2017, COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Feeling aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.146/2017 dated 04.10.2017 by the 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, the present writ petition is filed by the respondents therein. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15078 WP No. 27480 of 2018 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.923/2017 and respondents No.1 to 4 are the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial court. 3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.923/2017 on the ground that she is the owner of a vacant site measuring 60 feet east- west and 30 feet north-south, carved out in Sy.No.272/4, situated at Hebbal, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru taluk. It is submitted that she purchased the same by way of a sale deed dated 05.04.1985 and thereafter she obtained the katha and paid the necessary taxes. It is also submitted that she has constructed a compound wall and a small house in it. It is submitted that she has been in continuous peaceful possession of the property concerned and on 06.08.2017, the defendants, being strangers to the property, tried to interfere with her peaceful possession of her property. On the said ground, she has filed O.S.No.923/2017 for the following prayer: "The plaintiff is entitled to a judgment and decree against defendants as mentioned herein after: 1. For the relief of permanent injunction in restraining defendants, their henchmen or persons claiming under them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in and upon - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15078 WP No. 27480 of 2018 plaint schedule property, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. For costs and other incidental reliefs." 4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC with the following prayer: "For reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain defendants, their henchmen or persons claiming under them from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of Application/Plaint Schedule Property by granting an EX-PARTE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INUNCTION till the disposl of the suit, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY." 5. The trial court, by way of an impugned order dated 04.10.2017, based on the pleadings, has framed the following points for consideration and has answered them as follows: 1. Whether plaintiff made out prima facie case? 2. Whether balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff? 3. Whether plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury, if injunction is rejected? 4. Whether defendants made out grounds to vacate exparte injunction order? 5. What order? Point No.1 :: In the Affirmative Point No.2 :: In the Affirmative - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15078 WP No. 27480 of 2018 Point No.3 :: In the Affirmative Point No.4 :: In the Negative Point No.5 :: As per final order" 6. The trial court has passed the following order, which reads as under: "I.A.No.1 filed by plaintiff Under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w section 151 of C.P.C., is allowed. Defendants, their men, agents or any body claiming under or through them are restrained from interfering with possession of plaintiff over plaint schedule property till disposal of suit. Accordingly IA.No.2 filed by defendants under order 39 Rule 4 of C.P.C. is hereby dismissed." 7. Aggrieved by the same, defendants No.1 to 3 preferred M.A.No.146/2017. 8. The first appellate court, on the ground that the plaintiff claims to have purchased the property by way of an unregistered sale deed, which is typed on a Rs.5/- stamp paper and the same cannot be considered conferring any right on the plaintiff, has allowed the miscellaneous appeal and has set aside the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court and has dismissed the I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC by the plaintiff before the trial court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15078 WP No. 27480 of 2018 Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate court, the present writ petition is filed. 9. The case of the petitioner is that she purchased the suit schedule property on 05.04.1985 by way of a sale deed. The trial court in its order refers that it is an improper sale deed but does not explain it further. However, the first appellate court, after perusing the documents, has come to the conclusion that it is an unregistered sale deed executed on a Rs.5/- stamp paper. Admittedly, the value of the sale deed is much more than Rs.100/- and both the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908, mandate that a sale deed, if it is valued at more than Rs.100/-, has to be compulsorily registered. The copy of the sale deed is not produced in these proceedings. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked a pointed question as to whether it is an unregistered sale deed or not, he is not in a position to deny the same and gives an evasive answer that he is not aware of whether the sale deed is registered or not. The first appellate court, after perusing the documents concerned, has come to the conclusion that it is an unregistered sale deed based on which the petitioner is claiming a right over the suit schedule - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15078 WP No. 27480 of 2018 property and that it is typed on Rs.5/- stamp paper. Under the circumstances, one has to conclude that no proper title has been conveyed in favour of the plaintiff. Under the said circumstances, the trial court could not have concluded that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any error in the order passed by the first appellate court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. Taking into consideration the age of the matter, the trial court is directed to dispose of O.S.No.923/2017 as expeditiously as possible and the parties concerned shall cooperate for speedy disposal. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK