- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10893 MFA No. 5578 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5578 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, R/AT NO.38, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT, OPPOSITE TO SS PARADISE APARTMENT, HORAMAVU VILLAGE AND POST, BANGALORE-560043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.S. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O DORERAJ, 2. SRI. GNANAPRAKASHAM PUSHPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE M. GNANAPRAKASHAM, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1135, 3RD CROSS, 3RD A MAIN, RAMAIAH LAYOUT, KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P C NARASIMHAIAH, ADV./CR FOR R1 AND R2.) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10893 MFA No. 5578 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.27.01.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.26506/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (CCH-58), REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 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 The appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2024 passed on IA No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.26506/2023 by the Court of LVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-58), (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) thereby rejecting the application, has preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants and filed IA No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking ad-interim temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the peaceful - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10893 MFA No. 5578 of 2024 possession of the appellant/plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. 3. Further, the appellant/plaintiff submits that the scheduled site No.1 pertains to land bearing Sy.No.85/2 of Horamavu Agrahara Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore. 4. The respondents/defendants has filed written statement stating that the scheduled site No.1 in Sy.No.85/2 as contended by the plaintiff is not in existence but the said site is situated in land bearing Sy.No.85/1 of Horamavu Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, and the said site is a vacant one and defendants have claimed right, title and interest over the said suit schedule property on the basis of sale deed dated 20.08.2004. Similarly, the appellant/plaintiff has also claimed right, title and interest over the suit schedule property on the basis of sale deed dated 12.04.2007. 5. When there is a rival dispute between the parties with regard to claiming title of ownership, the appellant/plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction. With this being the ambiguity in identifying the sites by the parties whether the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10893 MFA No. 5578 of 2024 site they are referring to pertaining to Sy.No.85/1 or 85/2, for this, the appellant/plaintiff has to produce the documents to prove his contention. Admittedly the said site is a vacant site and also the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short) has cancelled the khata issued in respect of appellant/plaintiff. Though the appellant/plaintiff has contended that the said cancellation of khata in respect of site in Sy.No.85/1,but the site which the plaintiff is referring to pertains to Sy.No.85/2. When this being the rival dispute regarding claiming title of ownership and moreover the said site is a vacant one, the Trial Court upon findings, come to conclusion that there is no material produced by the appellant/plaintiff that the appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Thus, in this way, the appellant/plaintiff has failed to make prima-facie case and as such, the Trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiff. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, in my view, there is no error found in the order of the Trial Court in rejecting IA No.1 filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10893 MFA No. 5578 of 2024 7. In view of dismissal of main appeal, the pending interlocutory application stand dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22