- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6344 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE DODDA THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRENIVASA, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SOURABH R. KURUBARAHALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI T.P. DAYANANDA REDDY S/O. PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.210 TUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 066. 2. SMT. AISHWARYA REDDY.S, D/O. SOMASHEKHARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9/331, MUNIVENKATAPPA LAYOUT, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 106. 3. SRI. SHREYAS. Y, S/O. SRI. YERRAPPA REDDY. N, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 RESIDING AT NO.30, 27TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, NEAR THIRUMALA THEATRE, 1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 PASSED ON IA NOS.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.1698/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE IA.NO. II FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 07.08.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1698/2024 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s father by name Dodda Thimmarayappa has filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 the application for grant of occupancy right to the extent of 4 acre 33 guntas in Sy.No.12 against one Dakshinamurthy and rejected the same and right was granted in favour of Venkatagiriappa on 23.06.1962, but the plaintiff’s father had continued the possession over the suit land and after his demise, the plaintiff is in continuous possession till today and accordingly, the name of the plaintiff is appearing in column No.9 in RTC extracts. Thereafter, the children of Venkatagiriappa namely Papaiah, Muniyappa and Nanjappa have sold the land to one S.Srinivasa through unregistered General Power of Attorney and subsequently, the said S.Srinivasa has sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.1. Thereafter, the name of defendant No.1 was mutated in the revenue records and it is challenged before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner had dismissed the said application. But it is the case made out by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in continuous possession from his father more than sixty years. Therefore, perfected title by adverse possession. Hence, filed the suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 3. The defendants also filed the written statement and it is the case of the defendants that defendant No.1 had purchased the suit land from S.Srinivasa through registered sale deed on 04.07.2007 and accordingly, defendant No.1 has become the owner of suit property. 4. The plaintiff filed the application seeking for an order of temporary injunction by contending that the plaintiff is in settled possession over the property from the year 1962 adverse to the knowledge of defendant No.1 and perfected his title. Therefore, prayed for an order of temporary injunction, but it is dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal is filed. 5. Heard the arguments from both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material available at this stage, the following points arise for consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the materials produced before the Trial Court? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 balance of convenience to grant an order of temporary injunction? iii. Whether, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury? 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is in continuous possession over the suit property from the year 1962 and therefore, he has perfected his title by adverse possession and accordingly, filed the suit for declaration and it constitutes prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and if the order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff would be dispossessed, therefore, will sustain loss and injury. Hence, prays to grant an order of temporary injunction. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of Sections 132 and 133 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Further the order of rejection of application for grant of occupancy right is challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, tenancy application filed by the plaintiff’s father was rejected and the civil suit otherwise on the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 basis of challenging the possession and declaration is not maintainable since basically the question of tenancy is involved in the case. When this being the fact, the plaintiff does not has prima facie case. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. He places reliance on the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court: (a) 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 802: Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (b) CIVIL APPEAL No.7210/2011: P.Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar (c) W.P.No.26175/2019 (KLR-RR-SUR): Sri. Chikkanarayanappa v. State of Karnataka and Others (d) R.S.A. No.1462/2014: Smt. Mangalamma v. Sri. Ramakrishnaiah and Others (e) ILR 2001 KAR 4634: M/s. Sujay Enterprises v. Airport Authority of India and Others (f) ILR 2009 KAR 3302: Sri. R. Sadagopan v. Sri. K. Rajaiah (g) CIVIL APPEAL No(s).7550-7553/2021: Shri K. Jayaram & Ors. v. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 (h) (2010) 2 SCC 114: Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (i) ILR 1989 KAR 1701: Sri Gowrishankara Swamigalu v. Sri Siddhaganga Mutt (j) AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 296: Kashi Math Samsthan and Anr. V. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and Anr. (k) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.6286/2009: R.Ravindra Reddy & Ors. v. H. Ramaiah Reddy & Ors. (l) (2012) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 370: Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes And Others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) Through LRs. (m) CIVIL APPEAL No.1382/2022: Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.R.s. v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.R.s and Ors. (n) CIVIL APPEAL No.7502/2012: Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. LRs. V. Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors. 9. The trial court has dismissed the applications on the reason that the plaintiff has suppressed the materials before the Court, which is order passed in M.A.No.12/2024 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 in which it is discussed that the plaintiff is never in possession over the suit schedule property. Further that the order of rejection of grant of occupancy right is under challenge before the KAT, thus assigning these reasons dismissed the applications. 10. The suit is filed for declaration on the basis that the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession by pleading that the application filed by the plaintiff’s father for grant of occupancy rights was rejected in the year 1962, but the plaintiff’s father and after his demise the plaintiff is in continuous possession for more than 65 years. Therefore, the suit is mainly based on the possession. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has produced many documents prima facie to show that the plaintiff is in possession, but those have not been considered by the trial court in deciding the applications. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 12. Upon perusal of the impugned order the trial court has not at all discussed anything regarding the documents placed by the plaintiff and the defendants before passing the order on the applications filed for temporary injunction. If according to the defendants the suit is not maintainable, then the remedy is open to the defendants to invoke relevant provisions under Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the suit is maintainable or not, is a question to be considered in the trial before the trial court. Prima facie upon perusing the prayers made in the suit the suit is filed for declaration of title that the plaintiff has perfected the title by way of adverse possession. Therefore, the aspect to be considered in the suit is regarding possession and it is adverse to the defendants. 13. When this being the facts emerged, the trial court ought to have considered the documents placed before it regarding possession is concerned, but the trial court has not considered any of the documents placed before it. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion to remand - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 the case to the trial court to pass appropriate order after considering the documents/materials placed before it. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and remanded to trial court for fresh consideration of applications. 14. It is stated that the plaintiff is in possession of the property, but it is disputed by the defendants. Whatever it may be, till consideration of the applications with reference to the documents placed above, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo so far as its nature, characteristic and possession of the suit property is concerned. With this observation the appeal is disposed of. 15. Whatever observations made above shall not be construed as discussion on merits. Therefore, the trial court is directed to dispose of the applications on its own merits based on the documents/materials placed before it as per law. Till passing of the orders, both parties are - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38613 MFA No. 6344 of 2025 directed to maintain status-quo so far as possession, nature and characteristic of the land is concerned. The trial court is directed to dispose of the applications within the time frame as permitted under law. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB,DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27