- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4496 OF 2020 (CPC) BETWEEN: GANGAHANUMAIAH S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT CHOUDASANDRA, SOLADEVANAHALLI PANCHAYATHI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALOE RURAL DISTRICT PIN – 560 090 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M.N. VANITHA W/O DR G.C. SUMATHIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. DR G.C. SUMATHIKUMAR S/O G B CHANDRAKEERTHI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. SMT M.N. JAYAPADMA W/O SRI. AJITHKUMAR BALLAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.8, MODEL LIC COLONY, WEST OF CARD ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 079 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO. 6931/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.6931/2017 challenging the order dated 24.09.2020 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6931/2017 on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru1, thereby, the application filed for seeking an order of ad-interim temporary injunction was dismissed. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule properties. It is the case made out by the plaintiff that one Galihanumakka was the original owner of the land and the land of Galihanumakka and other lands were acquired by the Government in favour of the REMCO BHEL House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., (‘the society’ for short) for residential purpose and this acquisition proceeding was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.21920/2010 and this Court had quashed the entire acquisition proceedings and the said decision reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2248. Then the society challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 also affirmed the quashment of the entire acquisition proceedings. 5. Subsequently, it was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the quashment of acquisition proceedings and the said decision reported in ILR 1995 KAR 1962 SC. Not only this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered to give possession back the said acquired land in favour of the landowners irrespective of the fact that whether the other landowners have challenged the acquisition proceedings or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 21.02.1995; therefore, by virtue of this order, the landowners have taken back the land from the society. When this being the fact, the society had sold one of the site to the defendants’ vendor on 22.07.1995, but in the mean time, the plaintiff is claiming ownership through the landowners; the plaintiff’s vendor purchased the property from landowner and the defendant is claiming rivalry title through the society. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 6. It is admitted fact that the acquisition proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, but the defendants claiming their title over the suit site through the society and alleged interference in the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction. 7. The Trial Court assigned the reasons that though the plaintiff has prima facie case based on the material produced, but by holding that there is no balance of convenience and if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff would not suffer any loss and injury. Therefore, the application filed for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction was rejected. 8. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed for temporary injunction, the plaintiff has preferred this instant appeal. 9. Upon hearing the arguments from both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusal of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 the materials placed on record, the following points would arise for my 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 a 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? 10. Some of the chronological events need to be discussed to determine whether the plaintiff has made prima facie case or not and has balance of convenience for entitling the equitable relief of an order of temporary injunction. The plaintiff is claiming title over the suit property through the landowner namely Galihanumakka. One Manjuath had purchased 20 guntas of land from the legal heirs of Galihanumakka and subsequently, the plaintiff’s brother wife and daughter purchased the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 site from Manjunath. Thereafter, the wife and daughter of the plaintiff’s brother gifted the suit site in favour of the plaintiff’s brother. Subsequently, the plaintiff’s brother had executed a gift deed in favour of plaintiff; thus, in this way, the plaintiff had become owner of the suit site and claiming to be in possession of the suit site. 11. It is the case of the defendants that the defendants’ vendor purchased the suit site from the society on 22.07.1995 and the defendants have purchased the suit site in the year 2002. Hence, here there are two rival claims flowing from the title; one is from the landowner by the plaintiff and the defendants claiming the title flowing through the society. 12. When this being the fact, the plaintiff has produced some materials produced before the Trial Court viz., sale deed dated 06.02.2006, mutation records, RTC extracts, conversion order, tax paid receipts and some letters and gift deeds, which are discussed at paragraph - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 No.9 in the order and formed opinion that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case in his favour. As discussed above, some of the chronological events need to be considered to find out whether prima facie case is made out or not some undisputed facts are that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed the quashment of acquisition proceedings by holding that the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered that irrespective of whether the landowners challenged the acquisition proceedings or not, the society is directed to give back possession of the land to the respective landowners. By virtue of this order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (the SLAO) by order dated 03.09.1997 has given possession back to the landowners after receiving payment from the landowners. Therefore, the landowners have taken possession back of their land; it is pertinent to mention here that the society has written letter to the Government dated 09.10.2002 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 that in obedience of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given back land to the landowners and the compensation amount has also been reimbursed amount and thus the owners have got re-possession of the lands. 13. When this being the fact, the society has continued to sell the sites, which were formed during the pendency of the quashing of acquisition proceedings and sold many sites to purchasers; one among them is that despite the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashing the acquisition proceedings, the society sold the suit site on 22.07.1995 to the defendants’ vendor. The society challenged the order passed by this Court in the writ petition and writ appeal; therefore, it cannot be accepted that the society did not know about the quashing of acquisition proceedings. 14. When this being the fact, the defendants’ vendor acquired the property through a sale deed dated - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 22.07.1995 is doubtful regarding the title because the society had lost its title by virtue of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The plaintiff’s vendor, namely Manjunath had purchased the suit schedule property in the year 2006 from the landowners and accordingly his name was entered in the revenue records and RTC extracts. The said Manjunath had got the land converted for residential purpose by order dated 31.10.2008; thereafter, the plaintiff’s brother wife and daughter purchased the suit site on 23.10.2010. Upon considering all these chronological events, the prima facie aspect involved in the case is considered regarding the flowing of title. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant places reliance on the following judgments regarding the allottees of sites from the society in respect of other allottees: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 i. JAYALAKSHMI VS. GIREESH M AND OTHERS2 ii. SMT. B.L. VIJAYALAKSHMI VS. SANKEERTH T.S.3 iii. M. HAROONAL RASHEED VS. RAJLAXMI AND OTHERS4 iv. BASI REDDY JAYARAMI REDDY AND OTHERS VS. G. VASUNDARA LAKSHMI AND OTHERS5 v. S. C. GANGADHARAIAH VS. REMCO6 vi. LAKSHMAMMA AND ANOTHER VS. ROOPESH B. AND OTHERS7 vii. B. S. RAMESHA VS. LATHA B. SINGH AND OTHERS8 17. The sum and substance of the order passed and observed by this Court and Division Bench of this Court are that the purchase of site from the society is doubtful as the society had lost its title by virtue of the quashment of acquisition proceedings confirmed by the Hon’ble 2 MFA No.5410/2024 3 MFA No.7241/2022 4 SLP (C) No.990/2023 5 MFA No.6156/2019 and connected matters 6 LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-127 7 MFA No.7776/2015 8 MFA No.722/2021 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 Supreme Court. Therefore, the relief of temporary injunction granted in favour of the purchaser of the suit site, whose title flows from the original owners of the land. 18. Therefore, on these factual matrix, the prima facie case is considered; the plaintiff’s title is flowing through way back from the original landowners. When the landowners were successful in quashing the acquisition proceedings, the society has lost its title and also gave back possession of the land to the respective landowners and in this regard, the Government passed necessary orders as found out by the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, when the defendants purchased the suit site and their title flowing through the society, but the society has lost its title, the defendants’ title is prima facie found to be doubtful. Therefore, this is the prima facie case considered in the suit. 19. In this regard, the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience and if an order of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer more injury and loss than the defendants. Therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in not granting an order of temporary injunction. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case, but there is no reason that why the plaintiff does not have balance of convenience; in this regard, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and materials correctly, rendering erroneous order of dismissal of the application filed for temporary injunction. Therefore, the plaintiff has made out prima facie and balance of convenience and the plaintiff’s title flows way back through the original landowners from whom the defendants have purchased sites, but the society has lost its title. Therefore, when the plaintiff has shown the title through prima facie evidence, the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief of temporary injunction. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) to (iii) in the Affirmative. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 20. Another argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants is that the brother of plaintiff had cancelled the gift deed in the year 2018; therefore, the plaintiff does not have locus standi to file the suit as the gift deed is cancelled. To this, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the suit was filed on 12.10.2017, but the cancellation of the gift deed was made in the year 2018; therefore, as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff had title and after cancellation of the gift deed, the plaintiff has filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has not suppressed the cancellation of the gift deed before the Trial Court. Though the said application for amendment was dismissed, it is now pending before this Court in Writ Petition No.21583/2022. Hence, the cancellation of gift deed was not suppressed by the plaintiff. 21. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 convenience and if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer more injury and loss. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief of temporary injunction accordingly granted by allowing this appeal and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. 22. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated 24.09.2020 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6931/2017 on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. iii. Consequently, an order of temporary injunction is granted as prayed for by the plaintiff in his favour. iv. No order as to costs. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34264 MFA No. 4496 of 2020 In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs’, if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37