- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10016 MFA No. 8531 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8531 OF 2024 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2025 (CPC) IN MFA No. 8531/2024 BETWEEN: SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN S/O LATE RANGANATH S. K. AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.202, SRI RAMA KAMAL RESIDENCY, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, 2" BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE -560043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RANJITHKUMAR R S., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MAHESH V AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SRI M. VENKATESH R/O #401 MDM PARADISE, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, GANEHA TEMPLE STREET, HRBR 3RD BLOCK, KACHARAKANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 084. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, ADV. FOR CAVEAT RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO. 5924/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10016 MFA No. 8531 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCCH-42), ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. IN MFA NO. 393/2025 BETWEEN: SRI VIJAYA RAGHAVAN AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS S/O LATE RANGANATH S.K. R/O FLAT NO.202, SRI RAMA KAMAL RESIDENCY, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, 2" BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RANJITHKUMAR R S., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MAHESH V. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O SRI. M. VENKATESH, R/O #401 MDM PARADISE 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, GANESHA TEMPLE STREET, HRBR 3RD BLOCK, KACHARAKANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 084. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, ADV. FOR CAVEAT RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2/2024 IN OS.NO.5924/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU SCCH-42 REJECTING THE IA.2/2024 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10016 MFA No. 8531 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the impugned order passed on IA Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, in O.S.No.5924/2024 on the file of XLI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.42) (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) whereby IA No.1 which was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and IA No.2 filed by defendant No.2 was rejected, directing the defendant No.2 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondent/plaintiff till the disposal of the suit, has preferred these appeals. 2. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the plaintiff's grandparents were the owners of land in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10016 MFA No. 8531 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025 Sy.No.29/1 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru, which originally had an extent of 1 acre 34 guntas. After the demise of his grand parents, the suit schedule property fell into the share of father of the plaintiff and thereafter, katha was effected in the name of plaintiff's father. Thereafter, the said land in Sy.No.29/1 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas was acquired by Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) for the purpose of formation of Banaswadi Road and Hennur Road layout and plaintiff's father's name was notified as kathedar of the said property on the requisition made by him for reconveyance of entire extend of land. But, the BDA has reconveyed the said land only to the extent of 1 acre 17 guntas out of 1 acre 34 guntas. Thereafter, converted the land and demarcated sites in Sy.No.29/1 to an extent of 1 acre 17 guntas was reconveyed to the plaintiff's father and he was in possession of the same. Plaintiff's father has executed a gift deed dated 27.12.2023 in favour of respondent/plaintiff in respect of site No.3C-301/7 and the application made by the respondent/plaintiff for effecting - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10016 MFA No. 8531 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025 katha is pending consideration and the property was fenced and at the time of construction of compound wall, the appellant/defendant interfered with the plaintiff's possession and prevented putting of compound wall by the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.5924/2024. 3. On the other hand, appellant/defendant has filed IA No.2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent/plaintiff from interfering with the appellant/defendant's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 4. It is the case made out by the appellant/defendant that the plaintiff's father namely, Venkatesh has executed the sale deed in respect of property No.34, Kacharakanahalli, measuring 30x60 ft in favour of one Sri. Jayarame Gowda in the year 1992 and katha was changed in the name of said Jayarame Gowda. Subsequently, in the year 1994, the said Jayarame - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10016 MFA No. 8531 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025 Gowda has sold the said property to the appellant/defendant and his wife and as such, the appellant/defendant is the owner of the said property. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the said Jayarame Gowda had constructed the house and the appellant/defendant in turn has purchased the house. When this being the scenario, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant stating that the property belongs to the respondent/plaintiff and he is in possession of the suit schedule property. Though the appellant/defendant had ignorance of the fact that the said land belongs to the father of the respondent/plaintiff, he has produced the documents such as sale deed dated 14.02.1992 and 22.09.1994, katha certificate, encumbrance certificate, property tax paid receipt, water bill, electricity bill, building construction license issued to Jayarame Gowda and photographs of the building which shows that the said - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10016 MFA No. 8531 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025 Jayarame Gowda has sold the property in favour of defendant and his wife pertaining to house list No.2111/13, katha No.3315, property No.34 situated at Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru. 6. On contrary, the respondent/plaintiff is disputing that the alleged katha produced by the appellant /defendant in respect of the said property is shown as property No.34 by contending that the property he is referring to and the appellant/defendant is referring to, are different properties and prima-facie there is no document to show that, both properties are one and the same. 7. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that boundaries mentioned in the sale deed executed by said Jayarame Gowda in favour of defendant and the boundaries mentioned in the gift deed executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of respondent/plaintiff are one and the same. When this being the scenario, it is contended that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10016 MFA No. 8531 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025 appellant/defendant is residing in the said house property for about 34 years and still he is claiming that he is in possession of the property. 8. Considering the above factors, this Court is of the view that till disposal of the suit, both the parties shall maintain status-quo regarding possession of the property as on the date of filing suit. With this observation, the appeals are disposed of. Further, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible taking into consideration of the fact that the appellant/defendant is a senior citizen more than 85 years old and also both the parties shall co-operate for speedy and effective disposal of the suit. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29