Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
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. 8322 OF 2024 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8358 OF 2024 (CPC)
IN MFA No.8322/2024: BETWEEN:
SRI. H. UMESH S/O LATE HEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT HURALICHIKKANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 090. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.M.HALA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O OF LATE. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SMT. H.M VANITHA D/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. SRI. H.M. MURALI S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
4. SMT. LALITHA H.M.
D/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
5. SRI.JAGANNATH H.
Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
S/O. LATE HEMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT HURALICHIKKANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 090. 6. SMT. H. RATHNAMMA W/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA D/O. LATE. HEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 090. 7. SRI. T.N. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O. LATE. ASHWATHAMMA AND LATE. N. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. NO.16, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BESIDE NHM GLOBAL SCHOOL SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT, SEDEDHAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 73. 8. SRI. RAMASWAMY T.N.
S/O. LATE. ASHWATHAMMA AND LATE. N. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHARTTA HOBLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 090. 9. SRI. RAVIKUMAR S/O. LATE. THIMMAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
10. SRI. RANGANATH S/O. LATE. THIMMAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 9 AND 10 ARE RESIDING AT SEDEDHAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR ASHWATHKATTE, NAGASANDRA POST, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 073. 11. SMT. SUJATHA D/O. LATE. NARAYANAMMA W/O. RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.154, 4TH CROSS, HIPPE ANJANEYA SWAMY LAYOUT, NADEPETE, NELAMANGALA - 562 123. 12. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O, LATE NARAYANAMMA W/O. LATE. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT PUTTAGOWRAMMA BUILDING, SPARK ELECTRIC BIKE SHOWROOM, NEAR HOME WOOD, BINNAMANGALA, NELAMANGALA - 562 123. 13. SRI.
SATISH S/O. LATE NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BMTC DRIVER, 7TH CROSS, PATEL CHENNAPPA LAYOUT, SATYA MALLIGESHWARA NILAYA, NELAMANGALA - 562 123. 14. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. MATE AMBARISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO,.167 C/O. RAVISHANKAR KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, NEAR SAPTHAGIRI COLLEGE,
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE -560 073. 15. SRI. H.C. LINGARAJU S/O. LATE. CHIKKEGOWDA AND LATE. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.42/1, 2ND FLOOR, C/O. SURESH CBR COMPLEX, THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST SUBHASHNAGARA, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, NEAR RAKESH HARDWARE, BANGALORE -560 090. 16. SRI. SRIDHAR GOWDA S/O. LATE. CHIKKEGOWDA AND LATE. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
17. SMT. SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI S/O. LATE. CHIKKEGOWDA AND LATE. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
18. SMT RAJESHWARI D/O. LATE. CHIKKEGOWDA, AND LATE. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO. 16 TO 18 ARE RESIDING AT NO.58, 4TH E CROSS, RAJESHWARI NAGAR, LAGGERE, BANGALORE – 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.N.UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R16 (CP22706/2024))
THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.366/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. - 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
IN MFA NO.8358/2024: BETWEEN: SRI.H.UMESH S/O HEMANNA GEDA BOUT 63YEARS RESIDING AT HURALICHIKKANAHALLI, HESARGAHTTA HOBLI, CHIKKABANVARA POST, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 090. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. B M HALA SWAMY,ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O OF LATE. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SMT. H.M VANITHA D/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. SRI. H.M. MURALI S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
4. SMT. LALITHA H.M.
D/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
5.
SRI.JAGANNATH H.
S/O. LATE HEMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT HURALICHIKKANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 090. 6. SMT. H. RATHNAMMA
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
W/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA D/O. LATE. HEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 090. 7. SRI. T.N. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O. LATE. ASHWATHAMMA AND LATE. N. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. NO.16, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BESIDE NHM GLOBAL SCHOOL SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT, SEDEDHAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 73. 8. SRI. RAMASWAMY T.N.
S/O. LATE. ASHWATHAMMA AND LATE. N. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHARTTA HOBLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 090. 9. SRI. RAVIKUMAR S/O. LATE. THIMMAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
10. SRI. RANGANATH S/O. LATE. THIMMAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 9 AND 10 ARE R/AT SEDEDHAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR ASHWATHKATTE, NAGASANDRA POST, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 073. - 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
11. SMT. SUJATHA D/O. LATE. NARAYANAMMA W/O. RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.154, 4TH CROSS, HIPPE ANJANEYA SWAMY LAYOUT, NADEPETE, NELAMANGALA - 562 123. 12. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O, LATE NARAYANAMMA W/O. LATE. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT PUTTAGOWRAMMA BUILDING, SPARK ELECTRIC BIKE SHOWROOM, NEAR HOME WOOD, BINNAMANGALA, NELAMANGALA - 562 123. 13. SRI. SATISH S/O. LATE NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BMTC DRIVER, 7TH CROSS, PATEL CHENNAPPA LAYOUT, SATYA MALLIGESHWARA NILAYA, NELAMANGALA - 562 123. 14. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. MATE AMBARISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO,.167 C/O. RAVISHANKAR KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, NEAR SAPTHAGIRI COLLEGE, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE -560 073. 15. SRI. H.C. LINGARAJU S/O. LATE. CHIKKEGOWDA AND LATE. SMT.
ASHWATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.42/1, 2ND FLOOR, C/O. SURESH CBR COMPLEX, THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST SUBHASHNAGARA, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, NEAR RAKESH HARDWARE,
- 8 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
BANGALORE -560 090. 16. SRI. SRIDHAR GOWDA S/O. LATE. CHIKKEGOWDA AND LATE. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
17. SMT. SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI S/O. LATE. CHIKKEGOWDA AND LATE. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
18. SMT RAJESHWARI D/O. LATE. CHIKKEGOWDA, AND LATE. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO. 16 TO 18 ARE RESIDING AT NO.58, 4TH E CROSS, RAJESHWARI NAGAR, LAGGERE, BANGALORE – 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.N.UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R16 (CP22706/2024))
THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE
ORDER DT.25.11.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.366/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REJECTING IA NOS.1 AND 2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
- 9 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though matters are listed for Admission by the consent of learned Advocates appearing for both parties they are taken up for final disposal. 2. These two appeals are filed by the plaintiff questioning the order passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 respectively by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.366/2024, thereby, the prayer for seeking temporary injunction against the defendants to not to alienate, encumber or create charge over the suit schedule properties and prayer for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession over the suit schedule properties, are dismissed. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Upon perusal of the plaint averments the plaintiff has made averments mainly based on the Will executed by Venkatachalappa on 30.06.1989 and also claiming to be in possession over the suit
- 10 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
property with allegation that the defendants have started interference with the possession of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction but they are dismissed on the reason that Venkatachalappa has executed sale deed in favour of Ashwathamma and even thereafter Venkatachalappa has filed suit O.S.No.566/1973 (renumbered as O.S.No.518/1980) was decreed for reconveyance with a condition that Venkatachalappa shall reimburse the amount of Rs.1,000/- to Ashwathamma, but has not paid the amount therefore there was no reconveyance effected in favour of Venkatachalappa. Therefore, Ashwathamma remained in possession. 4. Therefore, Ashwathamma remained in possession and that reconveyance decree was passed on
03.04.1981. Further assigned the reason that on 23.03.1989 Venkatachalappa filed an application under Section 148 of CPC for enlargement of time for payment of amount and that is dismissed on 25.07.1991. Therefore,
- 11 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
there is no reconveyance of suit property in favour of Venkatachalappa and Ashwathamma continued in possession. Further observed that Venkatachalappa had no capacity to execute the Will since the Will dated is 30.06.1989 and such reconveyance decree was not executed by Venakatachalappa by making reimbursement of the amount.
Therefore, assigned the reason that Venakatachalappa had no competency to execute the Will, thus, dismissed the application for temporary injunction. 5. Heard the argument from the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material available at this stage in this appeal. 6. Upon considering the rival submissions and material produced at this stage, the points that arise for
consideration are as under: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial Court so as to grant order of temporary injunction?
- 12 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out 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 not granted, then the plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury?
7.
Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that Venkatachappa had executed the Will dated 30.06.1989 and other family members-defendant Nos.1 to 14 have consented for mutation of name of the plaintiff by virtue of Will and accordingly, revenue proceedings was initiated before the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has effected mutation of name of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff is in possession of the property. Further submitted that by virtue of reconveyance decree, Venkatachalapa has got possession and just because Venkatachalappa has not reimbursed the amount, at the most, remedy for the legal heirs of Ashwathamma is to execute for recovery of
- 13 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
amount, but just because Venkatachalappa has not repaid the amount, that does not make entitlement to retain the suit property by the legal heirs of Ashwathamma. Further submitted that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience and if the order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff would suffer loss and injury. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendant Nos.15 to 18 submitted that Venkatachalappa had no competency to execute the Will dated 30.06.1989. At that time, there was already conditional sale in favour of Ashwathamma and even if Venkatachalappa has filed the suit for specific performance and there is reconveyance decree and that is not implemented/executed. Therefore, the title and possession remains with Ashwathamma and her legal heirs who are defendant Nos.15 to 18. Further submitted that Venkatachalappa has filed the application under Section 148 of CPC on 23.03.1989 for enlargement of extension of
- 14 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
time for making payment and that is dismissed on
25.07.1991. When Venkatachalappa has lost the legal battle in this regard, then as a second round of litigation, the plaintiff has filed the present suit in OS.No.431/1996 for declaration and that is decreed on 05.08.2006. Against this, defendant Nos.15 to 18 filed RFA.No.2192/2006 and this appeal is allowed. 9.
In the said RFA.No.2192/2006, defendant Nos.1 to 14 have compromised with the defendants, but the plaintiff alone has contested the appeal and on his contested stand, this Court in the aforesaid appeal has given categorical finding that the title and possession remained with Ashwathamma and her legal heirs and continued the same. This is confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP.No.1491/2023, but the plaintiff has suppressed this fact of confirmation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that is amounting to suppressing of fact. Further by highlighting the findings made by this Court in RFA.No.2192/2006 that Ashwathamma is continued with
- 15 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
the title along with possession and the present suit is a second round of litigation based on the Will. Therefore, the plaintiff does not have prima facie case. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Upon considering the materials made available to this Court at this stage, Venkatachalappa had five daughters. The plaintiff is the grandson of Venkatachalappa. Venkatachalappa had sold the suit property in favour of Ashwathamma on conditional sale and one of the condition is for reconveyance of land upon reimbursement of Rs.1,000/- from Venkatachalappa to Ashwathamma. Accordingly, the said Venkatachalappa has filed the suit in O.S.No.586/1973 (new OS.No.518/1980) for specific performance and this is
decreed on
03.04.1981. One of the condition in the said reconveyance decree is that Venkatachalappa had to reimburse the amount of Rs.1,000/- to Ashwathamma, but has not repaid the said amount till today. Therefore, when once sale is made, then all the rights and interest are
- 16 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
transferred and vested with the purchaser including the possession. This conditional sale is dated 04.05.1966. Therefore, when the said sale deed is dated 04.05.1966, by that time Ashwathamma was in possession and acquired title through the registered sale deed. Even if Venkatachalappa has obtained reconveyance decree, but that is not implemented and executed. This is what observed by this Court in RFA.No.2192/2006. 11. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that Venkatachalappa is the grandfather had executed the Will dated 30.06.1989, but at that time what is the competency to execute the Will by Venkatachalappa is the question to be considered because by that time Venkatachalappa had already sold the land to Ashwathamma in the year
1986. Therefore, the competency of Venkatachalappa is one of the factors to be considered in the suit, but certainly this does not make out prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, but it is in favour of the defendants. - 17 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
12. Against the decree passed in O.S.No.431/1996, defendant Nos.15 to 18 have filed RFA.No.2192/2006 and this Court in the said RFA.No.2192/2006 has observed upon the contest made in the said appeal that Venkatachalappa admittedly did not secure execution of deed of reconveyance by not complying with the condition of decree. Therefore, the title remained with Ashwathamma. If by this admitted facts in the present case, the deed of reconveyance was not executed, hence, the title stood in favour of Ashwathamma would also continue to vest in favour of Ashwathamma and she would have necessarily be considered as a true owner. Though, in RFA.No.2192/2006 defendant Nos.1 to 14 have compromised with defendant Nos.15 to 18, but the plaintiff has contested RFA.No.2192/2006 and upon the points raised by the plaintiff regarding title and possession, which is answered on its merits. This finding is confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP.No.1491/2023.
- 18 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34436 MFA No. 8322 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8358 of 2024
13. When this being the fact revealed on the admitted facts and the documents made available to this Court, the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case, so as to warrant issuing an order of temporary injunction. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to make out prima facie case and balance of convenience and has not convinced the Court that if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then what would be the injury and loss suffered by the plaintiff. Therefore, at this stage, the plaintiff has failed to prove the points raised as above stated. Accordingly, point Nos.i, ii and iii are answered in negative. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
DR/PB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40