- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.25653 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VENUGOPAL A. M., S/O MUNIRAJAPPA P, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, NEAR CHURCH, ADIGONDANAHALLI, MUTHANALLUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 099. 2. SRI. SHIVASHANKAR V, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.360, ADIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MUTHANALLUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 099. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 1. SRI. J. ANTHONY RAJ, S/O LATE JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KALENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, S.O.S POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 076. 2. SRI. THOMAS, S/O LATE JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KALENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, S.O.S POST, BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 076. 3. SRI. PRADEEP P SHAH, S/O POOJALAL SHAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, 3RD FLOOR, NEW RAJA BUILDING, NARANG CHAMBERS, N.R. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 002. SRI. DINESH R SHAH, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 4. S/O LATE RATHILAL D SHAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, 3RD FLOOR, NEW RAJA BUILDING, NARANG CHAMBERS, N.R. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 002. (SINCE DECEASED NOT MADE PARTY TO WP) SRI. SHARAD P SHAH, S/O POOJALAL SHAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, 3RD FLOOR, NEW RAJA BUILDING, NARANG CHAMBERS, N.R. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.08.2025 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN M.A. NO.71/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order of the First Appellate Court dated 12.08.2025 which upturns the order of the Trial Court which had granted injunction in favour of the present petitioners-plaintiffs. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Jayakumar S Patil for Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar for Sri.K.Vijayakumar, representing the respondent No.3 and have perused the material on record. 3. Sans details, the facts necessary for consideration of the subject lis is as follows: (a) A sale deed is executed in favour of the petitioners’ vendors one Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty on 12.01.1948. The next date narrated by the petitioners is that they have purchased the property pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 04.04.2025 from the hands of the legal heirs of Gadi - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 Cheluvaraya Chetty. Mutation entries are also changed into the names of the petitioners. The averment in the petition is that certain disturbances to the possession of the petitioners ensued and therefore, they had to institute a suit in O.S.No.582/2025 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents herein. An application along with it under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred which was heard by the concerned Court and an order of injunction was passed. Against the order of injunction, the defendants-respondents herein prefer an appeal before the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.71/2025 and M.A.No.76/2025 which comes to be allowed by an order dated 12.08.2025 by the First Appellate Court. The allowing of the appeal is what has driven the petitioners-plaintiffs who were in benefit of an order of injunction against the respondents to this Court. (b) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri.Jayakumar S Patil taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition, would seek to prima facie demonstrate that the petitioners have purchased a property in Sy.No.33/2. The boundaries that are found are entirely different, is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel. He - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 would further submit that the First Appellate Court could not have upturned the order of the Trial Court, in a casual way, as it is settled principle of law that if an injunction is granted after hearing both the parties, the First Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the order so passed on considered reasons. The learned Senior Counsel submits that injunction that was operating in favour of the petitioners be restored. (c) Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar would submit that the petitioners claim their title pursuant to a sale deed executed in the year 2025. The sale deed is said to be executed by the legal heirs of Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty. In the interregnum what has happened is all in vacuum. (d) He would submit that in the interregnum, there are several incidents that have taken place with regard to Inams Abolition Act and the owners of the property after the regrant having got the property converted in the year 1989 and sold in the year 1992, when it was divided into six fragments. (e) The learned Senior Counsel submits that the sale deed in favour of the respondents is earlier in time and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 therefore, in terms of section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the injunction should ought not to have been granted as the sale deed of an earlier time would prevail over the sale deed of a later point in time of the same property. Learned Senior Counsel submits that all these issues will have to be thrashed out before the concerned Court where a suit for injunction is pending adjudication. He would submit that revenue entries were changed on 28.02.2025 and the sale deed is entered into on 15.03.2025 which is disputed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contending that the revenue entries stood in the name of the vendors of the petitioners right from the year 2011, be that as it may. A solitary property is claimed by two people. The concerned Court at the outset grants an order of injunction by the following order: "16. On perusal of the R.A.No.116/1960 the said Chaluvaraya Chetty had filed the said appeal to set aside the sale of suit schedule properties in favour of one Syed peer and the same was allowed and Chaluvaraya Chetty was declared as owner in possession of the lands as per sale deed dated 08.01.1948. In revenue appeal R.A.No.87/23 filed by defendant No.3, 4 and others is dismissed and in the said appeal it is held that land claimed by the appellants and the vendors of the plaintiffs are different. Even in RRT proceeding it is ordered to enter the names of the plaintiffs vendor, in the year 2011. The said order has attained finality. Counsel for defendant No.1 and 2 submits that he has already filed appeal on the said orders. On perusal of the order of Assistant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 Commissioner than land claimed by the plaintiff is still agricultural land. 17. Per contra defendant No.1 and 2 have relied upon the sale deed dated 08.01.1948 which is not disputed by both the parties. On perusal of sale deed dated 11.04.1956 as disclosed already property at item 'K' is sold to the Kozikode Jesuit Mission Society. Defendant No.1 and 2 has relied upon the sale deed dated 05.03.1958 executed by Kozikode Jesuit Mission Society in favour of grand mother of defendant No.1 and 2. It is the contention of defendant No.1 and 2 that in the year 1958 the land in sy33/2 was granted to one Smt. Bhagyamma. On erusal perusal of the said order based on purchase by Bhagyamma, she has been considered as kadim tenant. The said purchase pertains to land in Sy.No.33/2 which is item 'K'. As per conversion order land in Sy.No.33/2 is converted. Plaintiff is not disputing the conversion the contention of plaintiff is that he is claiming item 'J' in Sy.No.33/2 and not item K. Defendant No.3 and 5 has also relied upon the occupancy rights dated 23.05.1958. Conversion order which is already discussed supra. 18. It is the contention of defendant No.3 and 5 that they have purchased the property in Sy.No.33/2 from the GPA holder of Chaluvaraya Chetty and others. The said GPA is disputed by defendant No.1 and 2. As per the contention of defendant No.3 and 5 the land in Sy.No.33/2 has been purchased and they are running business in the said place and are paying taxes to the authority from the date of purchase. In the instant case on hand the defendant No.1 and 2 have disputed the title of defendant No.3 and 5. On perusal of the photographs the suit schedule property is a vacant land. No traces with respect to running business can been seen. 19. Further contention of defendant No.3 and 5 is that the land in Sy.No.33/2 is converted and the photographs shows that the adjacent land are built up with apartments and hence the land claimed by plaintiff is not in existence as agricultural land. At this stage it is well settled law that first rule is that the applicant must make out prima-facie case in respect of the right claimed by him. The court must be satisfied that there is a bounafide dispute raised by the applicant that there is a very strong case for trail. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 Probability of the applicant being entitled for the relief claimed by them. That there is prima-facie case and infraction of such right as a condition precedent for grant of temporary injunction. 20. I have carefully perused the materials placed by both plaintiff and the defendants. On perusal of the documents it shows that plaintiff is relying on the sale deed executed by the vendors i.e., the legal heirs of Chaluvaraya Chetty. The schedule of plaintiff is different from the claim made by the defendants hence at this stage if the defendants are not restrained from interfering the very purpose of filing the suit become infructuous. 21. In the instant case the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has stated that he is not claiming the property of defendants. The plaintiff has relied upon the sale deed executed by the vendors. The schedule of plaintiff and defendant is totally different. This is the suit for bare injunction to restrain the defendant from interference. In this type of case the thing to be shown by the plaintiff is whether he is in possession of the suit schedule property. As on the date of suit prima-facie case should not be confused with prima-facie title. At this stage the court should not try to resolve conflict of evidence nor to decide complicated question of fact and law which needs trail. Hence at this stage the plaintiff has made out made out prima-facle case and balance of convenience tilts in favour of plaintiff and irreparable loss and hardship will be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted, hence I answer the point No.1 to 3 in the Affirmative 22. Point No.4: In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 3. I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The IA No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. Defendants, their agents, henchmen or anybody claiming through them are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment or by making any damages thereon in the suit schedule property, till pending disposal of the suit." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 4. The concerned Court by the following order grants an injunction in favour of the petitioners. This was tossed by the respondents before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court again enters into the entire spectrum of the facts and upturns the order of injunction. The upturning of the order of injunction is based upon the following reasons: "14. Point No. 1 : According to the plaintiffs / Respondent no.1 & 2, they are the absolute owners in possession of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 33/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas situated at Kalena Agrahara Village, Beguru Hobli. Bengaluru South Taluk having purchased the same under sale deed dated 04.04.2025. The plaintiffs have got mutated their names in the revenue records. 15. The plaintiffs have produced copy of the sale deed dated 15.03.2025 registered on 04.04.2025 executed by G.Srinivasan & others in favour of plaintiff No.1 & 2 in respect of suit schedule property in Sy. No.32/2 measuring 1 Cres 12 Guntas bounded on the east by Muniyappa and another’s land and Radiant white orchid apartment, west by Pappakannadurai's land and Survey No.33, north by Ayasaheb's land and road and South by Mavalli Muniswami and others land and Survey No.24. It is recited in the said sale deed that the vendors of plaintiffs and their ancestors by name Late Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty, who was the propositus of Hindu undivided joint family has purchased the said property under sale deed dated 08.01.1948. It is also recited in the said sale deed that the vendors of plaintiffs have got mutated their names in the revenue records vide MR No.1/2011-12 by approaching the Deputy Thasildar when some strangers have tried to interfere the suit schedule property and wrongfully obtained the khata and revenue entries in their names in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have produced the RTC extracts stood in the name of the vendors of the plaintiffs and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 also RTC extracts entered in the name of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have also produced the mutation register standing in their name in respect of suit schedule property vide MR No. H1/2024-2025. 16. According to plaintiffs their vendors have acquired the suit schedule property from their ancestors by name Gadi Chaluvaraya Chetty under sale deed dated 12.01.1948. In this regard the plaintiffs have produced the copy of the sale deed dated 08.01.1948 executed by Rahamath Jan and F.Abdul Rasheed Saheb in favour of G.Cheluvaraya Chetty in respect of Item No.1 to 5. It is noticed that Item No.3 in the said sale deed consists sub items as Item No.A to K. The Item No.J is in Sy No.33/2 measuring 1 Acre 12 Guntas. Item No.K is in Sy No.33 measuring 1 Acre 12 guntas. Item No.J and K are mentioned with separate and different boundaries. Item No.A to I are not discripted with boundaries. The plaintiffs pleaded that their vendors have sold Item No.J to them. It is also noticed that the boundaries of Item No.J and the boundaries of property under sale deed dated 15.03.2025 are same. Now the question that has to be ascertained is that whether land in Sy No.33/2 and Sy.No.33 are one and the same or different. Except the RTC extracts of Sy.No.33/2 from 2011-12 to 2023-2024 standing in the name of vendors of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have not produced the Old RTC extracts and the revenue records like Akarband, Tippany to bring out the total measurement of land in Sy.No.33 and about the phodi of original Sy No.33. However, the appellants have produced the copy of Tippany of Sy.No. 33/2 and report of the Spl. Tahasildar for Abolition of Inams. Wherein it is noticed that the Sy.No. 33/2 is measuring 1 acre 12 guntas and Bhagyamma is ordered to be registered as Kadim tenant Under Section 4 of Inams Abolition Act. Admittedly, the order of the Spl. Tahasildar for Abolition of Inams has not been challenged by the Respondent no.1 and 2. Further, it is noticed that, in the sale deed dated 08.01.1948 it is recited that Item No.3 properties have been purchased from P.G.D’souza under Sale deed dated 19.05.1946 by the vendors of Cheluvaraya Chetty. Said sale deed is not produced by the plaintiffs. 17. It is further case of plaintiffs that the vendors of plaintiffs have put up compound wall and got executed - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 the said deed in favour of plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property as vacant agricultural land. But no document is produced to show that the vendors of plaintiffs have put up the compound wall to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants who are strangers to the family of vendors of plaintiffs and to the suit schedule property are trying to interfere and dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property by damaging the same. The plaintiffs have produced the copy of NCR issued by the police and the photographs. 18. The plaintiffs have produced an endorsement issued by Assistant Commissioner Bangalore East Taluk dated 20.09.2011, copy of the petition in R.P.No.256/2011-12 filed by Karnataka Jesuit Educational Society Before Special Deputy Commissioner seeking to set aside the order of Deputy commissioner in RRT case dated 05.08.2011 and set aside the order of Assistant commissioner in R.A. dated 20.09.2011. Further plaintiffs have produced the copy of Order in RA No.116/1960 dated 03.06.1966 filed by Cheluvaraya Chetty against Syed Peer and T.A.Rasheed challenging the decree in O.S.No.86/1995 dated 16.04.1960. However said order is not with respect to Sy.No.33/2 though it refers about the sale deed dated 08.01.1948. 19. Whereas the defendant No.3 & 5/ appellants herein contended that the Kalena Agrahara Village was Kayam Gutta Jodi Village. The written statement schedule property and other properties of Kalena Agrahara were vested to the Government since 01.01.1959. As per the Government notification dated 13.01.1959 the Inamdar after vesting of the land under the Act has lost all the rights, title and interest and they are prohibited from collecting the rents from their tenants. The written statement schedule property Survey No.33/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas and 15 items of the properties situated at Kalena Agrahara Village, Beguru, Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk belongs to Gadi Chalvaraya Chetty, Rehmath Jan and T. Abdul Rashid Sahib who are the joint owners of the above properties. The above 3 persons have sold the land in Survey No. 33/2 jointly in favour of the Kozhikode Jesuit Mission Society represented by its Secretary under Sale deed dated 11.04.1956 and they were put in possession and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 enjoyment of the written statement schedule property. The defendant No.3 & 5 have not produced the copy of the said sale deed. It is submitted that said Kozhikode Jesuit Mission Society has sold the said property in favour of Bhagyamma, who is the grandmother of the defendants under Sale Deed dated 03.05.1958. Copy of sale deed dated 03.05.1958 has been produced by the defendants. It is stated that said Bhagyamma had 4 sons namely Chowrappa, Antonappa, Kanikappa and Joseph who were in joint possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property as joint owners and as tenants in common. 20. According to appellants that one of the sons of Bhagyamma, namely Chowrappa S/o Muthappa, who was the permanent tenant under the Inamdar had filed application under Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954 before Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams for registration of occupancy right in respect of the lands which were in his possession prior to the date of vesting. Said Chowrappa had filed application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams on behalf of the joint family in common in Case No.36/51. They had been granted the occupancy rights in respect of the said land on 16.07.1958. In pursuance of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, the khatha has been effected in the name of Chowrappa S/o Muthappa and RTC has been continued from 1969-70 to 2010-2011. Copy of order passed by the deputy commissioner is produced by the appellants. 21. It is stated that Bhagyamma died on 17.08.1986 leaving behind her children and grandchildren. Since the date of grant, the family of Chowrappa and his brothers continued the possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property. Chowrappa has applied for conversion of the said land into non agricultural residential purpose before Deputy Commissioner. On 06.10.1989 the said land has been converted into non agricultural purpose and the mutation has been effected in the name of Chowrappa. The legal heirs of Chowrappa and his brothers have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Copy of RTC extracts and conversion order has been produced by the appellants. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 22. The appellants contended that the entry of the names of plaintiffs vendors in the RTC extracts by the Tahsildar is illegal since the land in question is converted land and it comes within the local limits of Gottigere Village Panchayath and BBMP limits. Chowrappa had expired on 23.12.1999. The Tahsildar has passed the order in RRT No.20/2002-2003 dated 05.08.2011 against the dead person. The appellants have produced the RTC extracts from 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2023-2024 standing in the name of plaintiffs vendors. RTC extracts of 2024-2025 standing in the name of plaintiffs. However it is noticed that in the year 2011-12 to 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 at column No.12 of RTC, the name of Chowrappa S/o Muttappa has been reflected. The plaintiffs have no explanation about the said entry in the RTC extracts. 23. The appellants have produced the copy of order of Special Tahasildar in RRT No.20/2002-03 dated 05.08.2011 which has been challenged by the Karnataka Jesuit Educational Society in RP No.256/2011-12 wherein the Assistant Commissioner has set aside the order of Tahasildar in RRT No.20/2002-03 dated 05.08.2011. The appellants herein have also produced the copy of order in RA No.87/2023 dated 04.03.2025 by Assistant Commissioner wherein the appellants have questioned the MR No.1/2011- 2012 which came to be dismissed, which order has been challenged by the appellants in RP.246/2025 before Deputy Commissioner who has granted the stay on the order of Assistant Commissioner and said appeal is pending for consideration . 24. It is submitted that the Kozhikode Jesuit Mission Society, presently the Karnataka Jesuit Educational Society has filed a suit in OS No.1003/2012 before 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge at Bangalore against the vendors of the plaintiff and also Chowrappa and others, which is pending for adjudication. But no documents with respect to said suit are produced. The appellants have produced BBMP Katha extracts and Katha Certificate and also tax paid receipts issued by the Panchayath in the name of appellants. As per appellants the vendors of the plaintiffs were never in possession of the Written statement schedule property. Without the knowledge of the defendants the plaintiffs vendors have illegally sold the said property in favour of plaintiffs - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 under the sale deed dated 15.03.2025. The defendants claim that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property. 25. Admittedly the respondent No.1 & 2/plaintiffs in the present case have filed suit seeking for permanent injunction against the appellants & others in respect of the suit schedule property. From the rival contention of the parties it is quite clear that the appellants/ defendants have disputed the title of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and they have setup their own separate title over the suit schedule property. Hence it is clear that cloud is casted upon the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Moreover it appears that there are litigation pending before the Civil Court as well as Revenue Authority by and between the vendors of plaintiffs and defendants in respect of the suit schedule property which have not reached finality. 26. Hence the plaintiffs/respondent No.1 & 2 have to prove their possession based on the title over the suit schedule property as they are claiming in order to convince the court with regard to interference by the defendants/ appellants over the plaintiff’s possession on the suit schedule property. The appellants/ defendants have denied the flow of title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and they have set up their own separate title over the suit schedule property. On considering the materials available before the court it is quite clear that cloud is casted on the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property which they have to establish in a suit for declaration of title. For these reasons it is clear that there is no prima facie case in favour of plaintiffs. The balance of convenience does not lie in favour of plaintiffs. Further irreparable loss and injury would not cause to the plaintiffs if temporary injunction is not granted in their favour as prayed. 27. The Learned Trial Judge while considering materials placed before the court has wrongly opined that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and also other two statutory ingredients for the grant of equitable and discretionary relief of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs. The learned Trial Judge has committed error and irregularities in passing impugned order. Therefore it is incumbent upon this court to set- - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 aside the impugned order passed by Trial Court by rejecting the IA No.I filed by plaintiffs. Under these circumstances it is clear that the appellants/defendant No.1 & 2 have made out a grounds to interfere in the impugned order under appeal, so as to set it aside the same. Hence, answer to point No.1 is in the Affirmative. 28. Point No.2: For the reasoning and conclusions arrived at the discussion on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The present miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants /defendant No.3 & 5 under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC is hereby allowed. The impugned order on I.A.No.I dated 09.07.2025 in O.S. No.582/2025 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru is hereby set-aside. Consequently, I.A.No.I filed U/o 39 R.1 & 2 of CPC by plaintiffs before the Trial Court is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." 5. As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, if the sale deed of the respondents is of the year 1991, which was after getting the land converted, not by the respondents but by the vendors of the respondents in the year 1989, the sale deed would undoubtedly prevail over the sale deed that is claimed by the petitioners of the year 2025. Much is spoken about the manner in which the sale deed is drawn by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents Sri.D.R.Ravishankar by taking this Court through the recitals in - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37698 WP No. 25653 of 2025 the sale deed, while if any observation would be made with regard to the recitals in the sale deed, it would undoubtedly prejudice the case of the petitioners or the respondents as the case would be before the concerned Court. 6. In the light of the order of the First Appellate Court not warranting any interference, I deem it appropriate to dispose the subject petition directing the concerned Court to consider disposal of the suit itself within a time frame, in the light of the fact that it is only a suit for injunction. 7. For the following reasons, the following: O R D E R [i] The order of the First Appellate Court does not warrant any interference. [ii] Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60