- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13424 MFA No. 7082 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7082 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. G. KOTESWARA RAO S/O. G. MASTHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.3410/7, 9TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, RPC LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 040. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BHANU PRASAD K, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. D. JYOTHI REDDY W/O. D.SADASHIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.1/1/55, MONA SONA NURSING HOME, DR.SADASHIVA REDDY ROAD, PULIVENDALA, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 516 390. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.VASANTH MADHAV, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA HAS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.18.09.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.617/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.IN TIME. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13424 MFA No. 7082 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellant/plaintiff being unsuccessful in obtaining the order on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction, has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 18.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.617/2022 on the file of XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 45). 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the plaintiff is the registered owner of suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 02.02.2007. Undisputedly, the suit schedule sites were formed in Sy.No.78/6 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13424 MFA No. 7082 of 2024 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas of land of Nagawara village and this land was acquired by the State Government in favour of M/s. Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’ for short) for formation of layout and the said Society has formed layout and sold the suit schedule sites to its members and one Sri. H. Venkatesh had purchased the suit schedule property and thereafter, sold to the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff’s title flows through the Society, then to Sri.H.Venkatesh and then to plaintiff. But it is the case of defendant that said acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of land bearing Sy.No.78/6 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas was quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2188/1998 decided on 17.01.2000 and this judgment is affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2086-2087 of 2004 decided on 07.02.2007. Thereafter, the Government has passed an order of re-conveyance of the said land bearing Sy.No.78/6 to the original owner. In this regard, the Government has passed an order on 05.02.2009 and also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13424 MFA No. 7082 of 2024 the owner who has received compensation in person has returned the said amount to the Government and to the Society. Thereafter, the Government once again had passed an order on 16.04.2010 cancelling the earlier order of re-conveyance made to the owner and has been withdrawn by the Government on 04.06.2013. 5. This order was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.32482-32485/2013 and the said Government order dated 04.06.2013 was quashed on 04.03.2014. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2505-08/2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted an interim order and it is still in operation. When this being the fact, after quashing of acquisition proceedings the defendant has purchased 14 guntas of land from its owner. The plaintiff is claiming title through the Society and the vendors of plaintiff who has purchased from the Society, whereas the defendant is claiming title through the owner of land bearing Sy.No.78/6. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13424 MFA No. 7082 of 2024 6. When this being the fact, the suit is filed only for permanent injunction. The plaintiff might have purchased the property on 02.02.2007, but tracing of title goes to the Society and land acquired in favour of the Society was quashed and the land bearing Sy.No.78/6 was re-conveyed to its owner. When this being the disputed fact, the plaintiff is straight away claiming title through its Society, but the acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.78/6 was quashed as stated by the plaintiff in its Government order as above discussed. Therefore, the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case. Hence, trial court is correct in dismissing the application - I.A.No.1, which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA/DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49