- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30287 MFA No. 4015 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4015 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: BOLLAMPALLI NAGA VENKATA SANDEEP S/O B VENKATA RAO, A/A 36 YEARS, FLAT NO.213, TIRUMALA SANKALP ARCADE, SRI LAKSMINARASIHMA COLONY OLD BOWENPALLY, HYDERABAD - 500 011 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.G.HEGADE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SHIVA. B S/O HANUMANTHAI. B A/A 38 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 108 PREMIOR SOLITUDE APARTMENT 16TH MAIN ROAD, VEERANNAPALYA NAGAWAR, BENGALURU – 560 045 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.07.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1269/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-32), BENGALURU CITY, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30287 MFA No. 4015 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for orders, with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.1269/2025 has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 07.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Sections 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1269/2025 on the file of XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru1, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is rejected. 3. The plaintiff by claiming that he is the owner of the property has filed suit for permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has inherited the land through his predecessor and this land was acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short BDA) in favour of Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative 1hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30287 MFA No. 4015 of 2025 Society (for short the Society) which was challenged and the said dispute went up to Hon’ble Supreme Court; ultimately, the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the acquisition proceedings and restored back the title and possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction stating that the defendant has encroached the land and attempted to make construction on it. 4. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that the defendant purchased the land in the year 2024 and the defendant’s vendor has purchased the land in the year 2023 itself. Therefore, the defendant is in continued possession over the land. Hence, a suit for permanent injunction alone is not maintainable. 5. Though the said order challenged by the landowners and they might have succeeded in litigating up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in getting restoration of their title over the schedule land, but in the meantime due - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30287 MFA No. 4015 of 2025 to acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA in favour of the society and the said society formed layout and allotted sites to various persons, the defendant is also one of the purchasers of the sites formed by the society. When this being the rival claim and even according to the counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant, the plaintiff might have suppressed some facts, but the defendant produced materials before the Trial Court showing that his vendor obtained a building sanction plan for construction. Though the defendant might not have obtained a building sanction plan for construction, the defendant’s vendor obtained the same, it means the plaintiff is not in possession. Therefore, the remedy of the plaintiff is not by way of filing a suit only for permanent injunction but also to seek an appropriate relief for claiming possession. 6. When this being the fact, the plaintiff failed to prove prima facie case that he is in possession of the land; hence, the Trial Court is correct in dismissing the application filed for seeking an order of temporary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30287 MFA No. 4015 of 2025 injunction. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. However, whatever observations made above are only for the purpose of considering the appeal on the submissions made by both learned counsels and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the above observations. The Trial Court shall consider the suit independently on its merits according to the evidence led before the Trial Court. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24