- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9532 MFA No. 6257 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6257 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. REVANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA, RESIDING AT ALLALASANDRA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, G.K.V.K. POST, BENGALURU - 560 065 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. CHANDRAKALA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. SHIVAMURTHAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.90/1, G-12, 1ST MAIN ROAD, "GARDEN VILAS", NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 072. ALSO AT; NO.2189, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE - 5770055. 2. SMT. KALPANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SRI. H.N. VITTAL RAO, RESIDING AT NO.6, 1ST FLOOR, "OLD POLICE STATION BUILDING", R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. 3. THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9532 MFA No. 6257 of 2023 BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., OFFICE AT HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT/SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 R2 & R3 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.13.07.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4855/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-26), ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Defendant No.1 has filed this appeal questioning the order passed in OS.No.4855/2021 dated 13.07.2023 by the Court of X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-26), thereby allowing IA No.I filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, and granting an interim order of temporary injunction directing defendant No.1 not to interfere with possession of the plaintiff's over the schedule property. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9532 MFA No. 6257 of 2023 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, to declare that she is the owner of suit schedule properties 'A' and 'B'. 'B' schedule property is the portion of 'A' schedule property. Further, the plaintiff sought for relief of praying mandatory injunction against defendant No.1 to remove the unauthorized construction (temporary shed) of 10X15 feet as described in schedule 'B' and also for permanent injunction against defendant No.1 not to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property. 3. The Trial Court after considering that defendant No.3-Society executed registered absolute sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 under registered sale deed dated 14.12.2000 and thereafter, defendant No.2 executed absolute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 is claiming that before compromise decree between the defendant No.2 and defendant No.3-Society, he was the owner of the property. When this being the contents as shown regarding declaration, to decide who is the owner of the property, then that becomes prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The Trial Court has observed that since the plaintiff is claiming her title through sale deed executed by defendant No.2 and at the same time, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9532 MFA No. 6257 of 2023 defendant No.1 has not produced materials to show that 'A' schedule property is in his actual possession. If defendant No.1 makes an attempt to construct or put up construction on the 'B' schedule, it amounts to causing irreparable injury to the plaintiff. Therefore, upon these reasons, as plaintiff has shown prima facie case in his favour and if temporary injunction is not granted, it will cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff. Therefore, the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.1 not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff's property. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 submitted that the prayer in the application is not to cause change, construction in the schedule property but the interim order granted is different than what is sought by the plaintiff. When the plaintiff has made prayer seeking direction against defendant No.1 not to cause any change and construction on the suit schedule property, it is nothing but observing that defendant No.1 is causing interference with the possession of the property. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9532 MFA No. 6257 of 2023 Therefore, there is no perversity found in the impugned order. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28