- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7203 OF 2018 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. RAMA. H.N, D/O. H. S.NAGABUSHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 194, 9TH CROSS, BHEL II STAGE EXTENSION, PATTANAGERE SOUTH, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. C. P. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. VEERANAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 126, PIPELINE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS MFA FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/08/2018, PASSED ON IA IN O.S. NO.1814/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-42), BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W. SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 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. The defendant in O.S.No.1814/2018 has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18.08.2018 passed on interlocutory application (IA) filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1814/2018 on the file of XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-42)1, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is allowed. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 1hereinafter referred to as 8the Trial Court9 for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has purchased the suit schedule site from the REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Limited (for short 8the Society9) through a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1997 and thus she is in possession over the suit schedule site, but the defendant is causing interference with the suit schedule site. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction. 5. Upon the application filed, the Trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that initially the State Government had acquired the lands of various survey numbers including Sy.No.24/3, in which the suit schedule site was formed in favour of the society. The land owners have challenged the said acquisition proceedings before this Court and this Court had quashed the acquisition proceedings and is reported in ILR 1991 AIR 2248. Subsequently, the society had challenged the said - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 order before the Hon9ble Apex Court and the Hon9ble Supreme Court upheld the order passed by this Court and the same is reported in ILR 1995 KAR 1962. 6. It is the case of the defendant that after quashment of the acquisition proceedings by this Court, which was confirmed by the Hon9ble Supreme Court, the society has restored the lands to its owners, who are in possession by receiving the compensation amount from the land owners through the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). 7. When this being the fact, the society had lost its title and lands were reverted back to its owners, then the purchaser of site (the plaintiff) through the society has become illegal, as the society had lost its title in the year 1991 itself. Further submitted that the defendant is the purchaser of the suit schedule site from the landowners. Therefore, the title has been validly conveyed to the owners, in this line, defendant has filed written statement. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 8. The Trial Court has allowed the application filed for temporary injunction and granted an order of temporary injunction on the reason that subsequent to the quashing of acquisition proceedings by the Hon9ble Supreme Court, the land owners have executed deed of declaration cum ratification affirming whatever acts were done by the society and also upon the compromise decree in O.S.No.5471/2002 dated 02.03.2009. 9. Upon considering the rival submissions of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusal of the material 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 balance of convenience to grant an order of temporary injunction? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 iii. Whether, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury? 10. When these are the factual aspects involved in the case, the plaintiff has filed a suit only for permanent injunction. When the question of determination of title is involved, there is no answer by the plaintiff as to why the suit is filed only for permanent injunction, but not claiming relief of declaration. Therefore, this is one of the circumstances that the plaintiff is not entitled to discretionary relief of temporary injunction. 11. The plaintiff has filed a suit only for permanent injunction. It is not disputed fact that initially the State Government has acquired various lands including the land bearing Sy.No.24/3, in which the suit schedule sites were formed in favour of the society for the formation of residential layout. The said acquisition proceedings were challenged before this Court and this Court had quashed the entire acquisition proceedings and is reported in ILR - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 1991 AIR 2248. Later on, the decision of this Court was challenged before the Hon9ble Supreme Court and the same was confirmed and reported in ILR 1995 KAR 1962. 12. When this being that fact, prima facie the society had lost title and this Court has delivered the judgment in the year 1991. Subsequently, the Hon9ble Apex Court had confirmed the decision of this Court in the year 1995. The plaintiff is claiming that she has purchased the suit schedule site from the society through registered sale deed dated 26.04.1997, but at that time, the society being vendor had already lost its title in the year 1991, which is confirmed by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the year 1995. Therefore, the purchase of the suit schedule site by the plaintiff amounts to an invalid transaction. The plaintiff is claiming through deed of declaration cum ratification that was executed in the year 2002. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 13. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land owners/P. T. Sadashivaiah and his family had executed the said deed of declaration cum ratification, which is of the year 2004, but admittedly this is unregistered document. When the defendant is claiming that the landowners have executed deed of declaration cum ratification, then the conveyance of property itself should be through a registered document as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. However, in the present case, admittedly the deed of declaration cum ratification produced by the plaintiff is unregistered one; therefore, even by this deed of declaration cum ratification, the society had not acquired the title. 14. Further, after delivery of judgment by the Hon9ble Supreme Court (supra) and directing the society to handover/restore possession in favour of landowners and by virtue of this direction and order of State Government, the society had handed over the land to its owners, which recalled the order passed by the SLAO in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 the year 1997; by this recalling order, the landowner P.T. Sadashivaiah had deposited an amount of Rs.41,000/- before the SLAO so as to return it to the society and obtained restoration and possession of land bearing Sy.No.24/3. 15. When this being the fact that emerged from the materials produced before the Trial Court, then the question comes before the Court is whether there was valid conveyance of property by the deed of declaration cum ratification dated 14.12.2000. According to the submission made by the appellant/defendant, this deed of declaration cum ratification is forged one and against the office bearers of the society a criminal case is registered for forgery and a chargesheet is lodged against the office bearers of the society. Therefore, the genuineness of this document namely deed of declaration cum ratification, is to be decided, but the Trial Court has relied on this document for granting an order of temporary injunction, which is not correct as the prima facie case is tilted - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 towards the appellant/defendant, but not in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court has not appreciated the materials correctly what the prima facie involved in the present case. 16. Further, the plaintiff knew about the quashment of acquisition proceedings, which was confirmed by the Hon9ble Supreme Court as the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint at paragraph No.5; therefore, the plaintiff knew that the society had lost title. When the Hon9ble Supreme Court confirmed the decision of this Court regarding quashment of acquisition proceedings therefore, whatever sale deed in favour of the plaintiff through society, which had lost its title, is invalid. Hence, there is no valid conveyance of title and this is also one of the prima facie circumstances to be considered in the present case for grant of an order of temporary injunction. In this regard, the discretion exercised by the Trial Court while granting an order of temporary injunction is contrary to the materials placed before it. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 17. Further, another reason assigned by the Trial Court while granting an order of temporary injunction is that there was a compromise in the suit in O.S.No.547/2002 dated 02.03.2009 on the file of XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, but this Court in the judgment dated 14.12.2023 in RFA No.1743/2013 between N.R. NAGARAJ AND OTHERS VS. REMCO (BHEL) HOUSING SOCIETY has rejected the plaint and allowed the appeal by setting aside the compromise decree. It is pertinent to mention here that against the society this Court in the above said RFA No.1743/2013 has imposed cost of Rs.1,00,000/- by coming down heavily on the society as the entire exercise made by the society is found to be surreptitious in nature. Therefore, in this regard, the Trial Court has not exercised discretion properly and the entire approach of the Trial Court is found to be perverse in nature. Therefore, granting an order of temporary injunction is not correct as the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 balance of convenience also the defendant9s title is through its original land owners claiming to be in possession of the property. 18. When this being the fact, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then there would not be injury to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant an order of temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. Hence, the order of granting temporary injunction is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) to (iii) in the Negative. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 19. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated 18.08.2018 passed on interlocutory application (IA) filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1814/2018 on the file - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31285 MFA No. 7203 of 2018 of XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-42), is hereby set aside. iii. No order as to costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26