- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2850 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5041 OF 2024 (CPC) IN MFA No. 2850/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR.L.VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O MR. H LAKKANNAGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO. 93/2/4, 4TH MAIN, 4TH B CROSS, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, 6TH BLOCK, KATHRIGUPPE, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 2. MR. M MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE MARIYAPPA RESIDING AT NO. 5/3/2, OLD GRAMATANA AREHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. N.S. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O MR. H.R. SUDARSHAN PRASAD, RESIDING AT NO. B 1003 CHARTERED BEVERLY HILLS SUBRAMANYA PURA, BENGALURU - 560 061. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024 2. MRS. CHOWDAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 Y EARS W/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA, 3. MR. K MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA. 4. MR. K. PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O LATE V. KRISHANAPPA RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 69, III CROSS, NEAR KABBALAMMA TEMPLE, AREHALLI MAIN ROAD, VADDARAPALYA SUBRAMANYA PURA POST, UTTARA HALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061. 5. MRS. K CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE V KRISHNAPPA, W/O MR. B. RAJANNA 6. KUM. BINDUSHREE R AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O MR. B RAJANNA 7. KUM. DIKSHITHA R, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS D/O MR. B. RAJANNA NO.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 151/1, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, AREHALLI VILLAGE SUBRAMANYA PURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R7 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2025) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN OS.NO. 26542/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-75), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. IN MFA NO. 5041/2024: BETWEEN: 1. MR.L.VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O MR. H LAKKANNAGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO. 93/2/4, 4TH MAIN, 4TH B CROSS, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, 6TH BLOCK, KATHRIGUPPE, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 2. MR. M MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE MARIYAPPA RESIDING AT NO. 5/3/2, OLD GRAMATANA AREHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH H, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R7 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 23.01.2025) AND: 1. MRS. N.S. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O MR. H.R. SUDARSHAN PRASAD, RESIDING AT NO. B 1003 CHARTERED BEVERLY HILLS SUBRAMANYA PURA, BENGALURU - 560 061. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024 2. MRS. CHOWDAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 Y EARS W/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA, 3. MR. K MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA. 4. MR. K. PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O LATE V. KRISHANAPPA RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 69, III CROSS, NEAR KABBALAMMA TEMPLE, AREHALLI MAIN ROAD, VADDARAPALYA SUBRAMANYA PURA POST, UTTARA HALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061. 5. MRS. K CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE V KRISHNAPPA, W/O MR. B. RAJANNA 6. KUM. BINDUSHREE R AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O MR. B RAJANNA 7. KUM. DIKSHITHA R, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS D/O MR. B. RAJANNA NO.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 151/1, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, AREHALLI VILLAGE SUBRAMANYA PURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH H, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R7 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 23.01.2025) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.16.07.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN O.S.NO.26542/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (CCH-75), REJECTING IA NO.3 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS NO.7 AND 8 U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT M.F.A.No.2850/2025 is filed by defendant No.7 and 8 questioning the order passed on I.A.No.II filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.26542/2023 dated 18.12.2023 by the Court of 74th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, whereby the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is allowed. 2. M.F.A.No.5041/2024 is filed questioning the order passed on I.A.No.III filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.26542/2023 dated 16.07.2024 by the Court of 74th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, whereby the application filed by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024 defendant Nos.7 and 8 is dismissed. Therefore, defendant Nos.7 and 8 have filed these two appeals. 3. The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration to - (i) declare that she is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 21.01.1999 executed by defendant No.1 and witnessed by defendant Nos.2 and 3; (ii) declare that the sale deed dated 09.12.2002 executed by defendant Nos.4 to 6 in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; (iii) declare that the Release deed dated 30.12.2020 in between defendant Nos.1 to 4 in respect of the suit schedule B property is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; (iv) direct defendant Nos.1 to 8 to pay damages; and other consequential reliefs of injunction. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.7 and 8 submitted that defendant Nos.7 and 8 are in possession and have produced electricity receipts which are subsequent to filing of the suit by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed suit in the month of November, 2023 but - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024 the origination of the electricity receipts for the first after having month of December, 2023 after filing the suit. Therefore, the question is who is possession over the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 21.01.1999 is prior to the sale deed of defendant Nos.7 and 8 which is on 09.12.2022. 5. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant Nos.7 and 8 are attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff's property. The documents of electricity receipts and other documents placed by defendant Nos.7 and 8 cannot be considered to show that defendant Nos.7 and 8 are in possession since they are originated for the first time after filing of the suit. 6. It is submitted that defendant No.1 did not have competency alone to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Also the plaintiff has questioned the execution of the Release deed dated 30.12.2020 in between defendant Nos.1 to 4 enabling defendant No.4 to alienate the property in favour of defendant Nos.7 & 8. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024 When these two questions are involved in the suit, they are the matter for trial before the trial Court. Though defendant Nos.7 and 8 are claiming to be in possession by putting up a shed but that is subsequent to filing of the suit. Therefore, defendant Nos.7 and 8 cannot claim possession by those electricity receipts. It is well settled law that possession follows title. 7. When plaintiff and defendant Nos.7 & 8 are asserting title through sale deeds then the question is whose sale deed is prior to the others. The plaintiff's sale deed dated 21.01.1999 and the sale deed of defendant Nos.7 and 8 was executed on 09.12.2022. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no need to make interference of the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeals filed by defendant Nos.7 and 8 are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024 8. Whatever the observations made above shall not be construed as merits involved in the suit, as they are only prima facie view based on the materials produced before the Court. Therefore, the trial Court shall decide the suit independently on merits of the suit based on the evidence to be adduced. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22