- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4279 OF 2015 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. CHOWDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 1(A). SRI. C. VENKATESH S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA @ DODDACHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 1(B) SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE CHOWDAPPA @ DODDACHOWDAPPA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT ARADESHANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 1(C). SRI. C. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA @ DODDACHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 1(D) SRI. C. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA @ DODDACHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1(A), 1(C) AND 1(D) ARE RESIDING AT BETTAKOTE VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M.S. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE MARISIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SRI. B.M. MUNIVEERANNA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SMT. SUVARNAMMA W/O LATE KEMPANNA B.M AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE KEMPANNA B.M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. SRI. JAGADISHA S/O LATE KEMPANNA B.M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT BETTAKOTE VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DTD.20.07.2015 NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DTD.14.10.2024 APPEAL AGAINST R1 IS ABATED; SRI. G.S. PATEEL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.17.04.2015 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S. NO.24/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING I.A. NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc.First appeal is instituted under order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, 1908 arising out of impugned order dated 17th April 2015 passed by the learned Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Devenahalli in OS No.24/2015, whereby, the learned trial Judge declined to grant temporary injunction sought by the appellant (plaintiff in the suit) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Being aggrieved by such a refusal, the appellant has approached this Court praying inter alia for reversal of the impugned order and for grant of an interim order of status quo in respect of immovable property forming the subject matter of the litigation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 2. The facts as narrated and urged by the learned counsel for the appellant reveal a long chain of devolution of title pertaining the land bearing Sy.No.93 (New no.93/2) measuring 1 acre 14 guntas situated at Hosahalli village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devenahalli Tq. Bengaluru Rural Dist. The appellant specifically asserts that, the schedule properties originally belonged to Krishnoji Kande Rao and the same was lawfully acquired by appellant's grand father by way of registered sale deed dated 11.04.1947. This was followed by a partition deed dated 06.09.1954 wherein, the suit property was allotted to the appellants' father. The appellant as a legal heir and successor, claims continuous possession and ownership flowing from these uncontested documents. 3. The controversy begins with the appellant's assertion that, his father had alienated land bearing Sy.No.92 measuring 2 acres to one Sri Venkatashamappa through a registered sale deed dated 12.04.1965. It is the appellant's case that, the said document was later - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 interpolated to mention Sy.No.93 in place of Sy.No.92., thereby, misrepresenting the property that was conveyed. Building upon this alleged act of manipulation, it is asserted by the plaintiff that, the present first respondent who derived title under the sale deed from Venkatashamappa fraudulently executed an exchange deed dated 24.01.1983 in favour of second respondent even though he had no legitimate title over the suit schedule property. Based on the exchange deed, revenue entries were mutated in the name of second respondent. 4. The appellant specifically contends that this entire chain of transaction thus beginning from erroneous sale, interpolation, exchange and mutation is tainted with fraud and collusion and that the respondents have fabricated the cases of their title by relying on forged interpolated and misleading documents. Upon coming to know of these developments including a collusive partition decree passed in OS No.599/2014 in favour of the second respondent son, (to which the appellant was not a party) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 the appellant filed OS NO.24/2015 seeking the relief of declaration, cancellation of the said decree and other consequential reliefs. 5. In the suit, the appellant also filed IA No.1 seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from altering the nature and character of the property, alienating or encumbering or interfering with peaceful possession of the property. The trial Court, however by passing the impugned order dismissed the said application. The trial Court reasoned that, the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case, had not approached the Court with clean hands and balance of convenience favoured the respondents. This is how now the appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned order. 6. Having heard the arguments of both the side and having examined the impugned order in juxtaposition with the pleadings, documents and arguments advanced - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 before this Court, it is evident that the order under challenge suffers from both legal infirmity and factual misrepresentation for the following reasons: Firstly, this Court notes that, the appellant has placed on record foundational documents such as the 1947 registered sale deed which was followed by 1954 partition deed. These transactions are old, registered and not impeached by any authority or litigation so far till this day. The flow of title from original owner to the appellant is thus, not merely a matter of assertion but, is backed by credible documentary evidence. Secondly, the core allegation against the respondents revolves around the interpolation under the sale deed of 1965 and illegitimate exchange deed executed in the year 1983. These are all serious allegations involving questions of forgery, fraud, misrepresentation and collusion- all of which necessarily require a full-fledged trial for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 determination. It is well settled that, Courts cannot summarily reject claims involving disputed facts at the interlocutory stage especially where ownership of property is in question. Thirdly, the respondents reliance on revenue records mutated in their favour cannot be held conclusive or determinative of title. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments have repeatedly held that, revenue entries are fiscal documents meant for taxation purposes and cannot override title derived through lawful instruments. In Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 it is held that, it is a settled Position of Law that, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. If there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 the Will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of Will has to approach the appropriate Civil Court and get his rights crystalized and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the Civil Court necessary mutation entry can be made. In this context, the trial Court's observation that the appellant failed to challenge mutation. Fourthly, the learned trial Court appears to have prematurely reached to a conclusion that, plaintiff is not entitled to relief due to alleged suppression of facts. However, such findings require evidence and cannot be assumed at the threshold. The assertion that, the suit is speculative is contrary to the record, which clearly shows that, the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence after discovery of alleged fraud. 7. The law governing the grant of interlocutory relief is well settled. The Court must examine:- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 (i) whether the plaintiff has prima facie case? (ii) whether the balance of convenience lies in his favour? and iii) whether irreparable injury would result if interim relief is denied?. All three conditions are manifestly satisfied by the plaintiff in the present case. The appellant has demonstrated a serious and arguable case based on lawful ownership documents. The balance of convenience lies in preventing further alienation or mutation in favour of third parties. The property in question being immovable property and susceptible to permanent legal injury, any transfer or development would render suit infructuous and prejudice the outcome of the litigation. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that, status quo is not a grant of final relief but, merely a protective mechanism to preserve the subject matter of suit pending adjudication. The Courts are duty bound to preserve lis pendens property particularly where there are grave allegations of title - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 fraud, so that, no irreversible damage is done to either parties interest during the pendency of the trial. It is also worth reiterating that, status quo tilts the scale in favour of either side, it only maintains equilibrium until the Court has had an opportunity to determine the true facts. The denial of such a protection risks allowing allegedly fraudulent transactions to mature into further third party rights defeating the very purpose of pending suit. 8. Having regard to the foregoing analysis of this case and with view to secure the ends of justice and prevent miscarriage thereof, this Court finds it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order and to protect the subject matter of dispute until the completion of trial. 9. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Order dated 17.04.2015 passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, in I.A.1 in OS No.24/2015 rejecting the IA No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is hereby set aside. (iii) The parties are directed to maintain status quo as on the date of this judgment in respect of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.93 New No.93/2, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas situated at Channarayapatana Hobli, Devenahalli, Bengalurur Rural Dist. (iv) The learned trial Court is requested to proceed in OS No.24/2015 on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously with all its promptitude. (v) It is made clear that, any of the observations made in this judgment is purely for the purpose of deciding this appeal and shall not influence the trial - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25508 MFA No. 4279 of 2015 Court while deciding the main suit on merits. Under the peculiar circumstance, no order as to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3