- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10693 MFA No. 4433 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4433 OF 2017 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. KEMPEGOWDA S/O LATE KEMPAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O ANJANANAGAR, VISHWANEEDAM POST YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 091 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATEESH N. KOTTALAYI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SURYANARAYANA GOWDA S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. SRI. VENKATESH S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO 1 TO 4 ARE R/O BYDARAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10693 MFA No. 4433 of 2017 YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 091. 5. SRI. S.L. DHANRAJ S/O LAKKANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NEAR T.R.MILL, VITTALANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 018. a) SMT. PUSHPAVATHI W/O LATE S. L. DHANRAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, b) SMT. KOMALA.D W/O LATE S.L. DHANRAJ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, c) SRI. S. SWAMY VIVEKANANDA S/O LATE S.L. DHANARAJ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO 5 (A) TO (C) R/AT NO. 7/2 S.M.B. ASHVAME, 2ND MAIN, VITAL NAGAR, BANGALURU. 6. SRI. RENUKA ARADHYA, S/O REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 7. SRI. RAJANNA S/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 8. SRI. KUMAR S/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 9. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10693 MFA No. 4433 of 2017 10. SMT. SHARADAMMA D/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 11. SMT. LALITHAMMA S/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 11 ARE R/O ULLALA VILLAGE, MALLATHAHALLI POST, YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R5 (A TO C); R1 TO R4 AND R6 TO R11 IS DISPENSED WITH ) THIS MFA FILED HAS U/O XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2017 PASSED ON I.A. NO. II IN R.A. NO.56/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, REJECTING I.A. NO. II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 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 Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10693 MFA No. 4433 of 2017 2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 25.04.2017 passed on I.A.No.II in R.A.No.56/2017 on the file the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru (herein after referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’ for short). 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. Heard the arguments from both sides. 5. The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration that to declare he is owner of the land bearing Sy.No.30/2 and for permanent injunction and the suit is partly decreed. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff was enjoying the order of temporary injunction till disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed R.A.No.56/2007 also filed an application I.A.No.II under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10693 MFA No. 4433 of 2017 read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction, but that was rejected. 6. The plaintiff/appellant is claiming ownership over the land and respondent No.5 is also claiming ownership over the same land, the said land was acquired by the BDA and as a compensatory cost two sites have been given to 5th respondent, but the appellant is making rival claim on the said two sites. 7. It is apprehension of the plaintiff/appellant that if respondent No.5 shall sold the said two sites then the appeal would become infructuous. Whatever may rival contentions of both the parties and now R.A.No.56/2017 pending for consideration and till disposal of the said regular appeal if respondent No.5 is restrained from alienation that would not cause loss/injury to respondent No.5. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed restraining respondent No.5 from alienating the suit properties during pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10693 MFA No. 4433 of 2017 8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 25.04.2017 passed on I.A.No.II in R.A.No.6/2017 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, is hereby set aside. iii. Respondent No.5 is restrained from making alienation and creating third party rights or encumbering over the suit schedule property, till disposal of the appeal. iv. The appeal in R.A.No.56/2017 is of the year 2017 therefore, the First Appellate Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from today i.e., on 14.03.2025. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21