- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 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. 845 OF 2023 (CPC-) BETWEEN: SMT GEETHA ESWARAN W/O LATE DR L. AMARNATH D/O M ESWARAN KAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.279, 1ST FLOOR, 67TH CROSS ROAD, 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.NANJUNDA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE G LINGAPPA AGE ABOUT 88 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.279, 67TH CROSS ROAD 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE- 560 010 2. DR. GURUNATH S/O LATE G LINGPPA AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 279, 67TH CROSS ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE- 560 010 Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 3. SMT.BHARATHI.L W/O BASAVARAJU.N, D/O LATE G.LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RSIDING AR NO. 230, 13TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD A CROSS, MPM LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, NAGARBHAVI, M.P.LAYOUT, BENGALURU- 560056. MOBILE NO. 9535473749. 4. DR. L.MALATHI W/O SANJAY, NAVAL COMMANDER (RETD.), D/O LATE G.LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 427, 5TH BLOCK, SIR.M.VISWESWARAIAH LAYOUT, VISWANEEDAM, BENGALURU- 560091. MOBILE NO. 93508 55644. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VITTALA SHETTY.P., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.L, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.24.11.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.9 IN O.S.NO.848/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 17TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-16), DISMISSING IA NO.9 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff questioning the order dated 24.11.2022 passed on I.A.No.9 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.848/2021 by the XVII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore, whereby the application filed for temporary injunction was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant has filed suit for partition and separate possession claiming that she is the wife of deceased Amarnath, son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendant No.2. Plaintiff's husband-Amarnath died and she is residing in the first floor of the building as shown in the cause title of the appeal and in the suit and in the ground floor, the defendants are residing. The defendants interfered by blocking to ingress and egress to the first - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 floor and also caused disturbance to use the common passage to go to the first floor and interfered with use of electricity and water meter and therefore, plaintiff had filed the application for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., item No.2 of the suit schedule 'B' property in any manner, including but not limited to easement, right to common passage, electricity and water connections by stating that she is residing in the said address. 4. This was refuted by the defendants and stated that the plaintiff is not residing in the first floor of the suit schedule house but she is residing in the address at J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase, Bengaluru and the application filed was misconceived just to harass the defendants. 5. The trial Court after hearing the parties, rejected I.A.9 filed by the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal is filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 6. Learned counsel for the defendants however, justified the order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff and therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials furnished in the appeal. 8. The following points arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out a case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 not granted then, plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury? 9. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff is claiming that she is residing in the address at No.279, first floor, 67th Cross Road, 5th block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, as stated in the cause title of the plaint. Now, at this stage, for grant of order of temporary injunction for protecting the possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has to show a prima facie case that she is now residing in the address as shown in the cause title of the plaint. In support of the said contention, the plaintiff has relied on many documents, such as complaint given before the KPTCL authorities, police authorities, BBMP authorities, and also in Writ Petition No.24505/2022 wherein it is shown that, she is residing in the address as shown in the cause title of the plaint in the suit and that the defendants have illegally constructed the wall which blocks the door/staircase of the first floor where the petitioner resides and she is restricted to legal access and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 blocking the ingress and egress over the property. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed the photographs to show that access to first floor was blocked by the defendants by constructing a wall and submitted that, due to the said blockage, the plaintiff was constrained to reside in the rented house and therefore, it should not be construed that, plaintiff is residing separately in another house on her own volition but, only due to the circumstance owing to the compulsion as access to first floor of the house is blocked by the defendants. 10. 10. Further, the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that defendant No.1 has lodged a private complaint against her before the III ACMM Court at Bengaluru in PCR No.18450/2021, wherein she is shown to be residing in the address as shown in the cause title of the plaint. Therefore, it is clear that the defendants have admitted that the plaintiff is residing in the address shown in the memorandum of the suit i.e., the house at first floor. Therefore, he submitted that these documents constitute - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 prima facie material for grant of temporary injunction against the defendants. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents submits that the plaintiff is not residing in the suit house i.e., in the address as shown in the cause title of the plaint, but she is residing in Flat No.2, 17th floor, Wing No.A-3, opp: RBI Layout, J.P. Nagar, 7th phase, Bangalore-560078. Therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff is a misconceived one just to harass the defendants as, defendant No.1 is a aged lady of 90 years old and defendant No.2 is a physical handicapped person. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants further submitted that, Caveat Petition has been filed by the defendants in this appeal and the Caveat Petition was sent to the petitioner through "RPAD" with 'Acknowledgment Due' wherein the address of the plaintiff is shown as, 'J.P. Nagar, Bangalore' and not 'Rajajinagar, Bangalore' and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 produced the original postal receipts. Further, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents placed reliance on the materials such as the tax paid receipts which shows that the plaintiff is regularly paying taxes to the Apartment, as stated above i.e., at J.P. Nagar, Bangalore continuously upto the year 2025-26. Therefore, the materials produced would prima facie show that the plaintiff is not residing in the address shown in the cause title of the suit. 13. Further, on perusal of the trial Court order, it is observed that, if the plaintiff is residing in the address shown in the plaint i.e., at I floor, Rajajinagar, then electricity and water charges would have to be levied as per the usage of power and water consumption but the corresponding bills would depict minimum charges has been levied which shows that prima facie the plaintiff is not residing in the said house. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 14. Further, it is observed that the plaintiff has very much relied on the complaint given before the BBMP and Police Authorities, wherein the address mentioned is that of the suit schedule house to establish that she is residing in the first floor of the said suit house and contended that the address shown in the said documents itself is self explanatory in nature to demonstrate that she is residing therein. But on perusal of the documents produced by the defendants, it would show that in the year 2009, the plaintiff has purchased the Flat at J.P. Nagar, Bangalore, as discussed above. Further, the plaintiff has filed Review Petition No.392/2024 in the M.F.A. No.845/2023 in which the plaintiff has sworn in the affidavit that she is residing in the address at J.P. Nagar, Mysore. Further, the defendants have produced affidavit of the driver by name Nagaraj S/o. late Dhanapal, wherein he has deposed that the plaintiff is residing in a 2 BHK flat bearing No.02, 17th Floor, Block/Wing A-3. Elita Promenade, Kothnur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, J.P. Nagar 7th Phase, Bangalore. The - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 defendants have also produced photographs to show that the plaintiff's Car was parked in the basement floor of the Apartment at J.P. Nagar, Bangalore, and this is not disputed by the plaintiff but submitted an explanation that, for collection of rent and for other purposes, she has been visiting the Apartment regularly and at that time, Car was parked and that it should not be construed to say that she is residing in the said address. But, prima facie the defendants have established with the help of the affidavit of the driver and the sale deed that the plaintiff has purchased the said Apartment. The said Apartment is shown to be purchased in the year 2009 and when coupled with postal acknowledgement receipts which contains the address of the plaintiff as residing in the J.P. Nagar and not in the suit house i.e., first floor, Rajajinagar as shown in the plaint of the suit, it is clear that the plaintiff is not residing in the address as shown in the memorandum of the suit and other documents. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 15. Further, the explanation offered by the plaintiff for not residing in the first floor in the suit house is that the defendants have blocked access to go to first floor and therefore, she was constrained to reside at some other house. But, as of now also, it is prima facie clear that the plaintiff is not residing in the address as shown in the cause title i.e., in the suit house at first floor which is further fortified from the affidavit filed in support of the Review Petition seeking relief of grant of injunction, wherein it is stated that plaintiff is residing at J.P. Nagar, Bangalore and not in Rajajinagar. 16. Therefore, upon analysing the documents placed by both sides, at this stage, it is prima facie noticed that, the plaintiff is not residing in the address shown in the suit i.e., the house at first floor. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to place prima facie material in support of her case so as to grant an order of temporary injunction. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that, as the suit is filed for partition, the best course for the plaintiff, as of now, is to maintain status quo in regard to possession over the property till getting her share in the property and the plaintiff has failed to put forth a prima facie case and therefore, there is no balance of convenience so as to grant temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff and the trial Court is justified in rejecting temporary injunction to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff may have the balance of convenience in obtaining a decree in the suit, but that does not constitute a prima facie case so as to grant order of temporary injunction in this appeal. 18. Accordingly, I answer points Nos.1 to 3 in the negative. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40368 MFA No. 845 of 2023 19. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this appeal, shall not influence the trial Court in disposal of the suit. 20. Further, as the suit is of the year 2021, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5