- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6172 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. VIJAY S/O SHANKARAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.41 MES RING ROAD BAHUBALINAGAR, JALAHALLI POST BANGALORE-560 013 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATISH T.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GOUTHAM CHAND S/O GENMAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.P-56, MES ROAD BAHUBALINAGAR, JALAHALLI POST BANGALORE-560 013 2. SRI. MYNENI VAMSIDHAR S/O RAVINDRA PRASAD MYNENI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1406 ACS APARTMENT, BSK RING ROAD BANGALORE-560 070 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.4802/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-8, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc.First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC, 1908 is directed against the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the learned 11th City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH No.8) in Os no.4802/2023, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the appellant as plaintiff's application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction. 2. The facts in brief are that; the appellant herein who was the plaintiff before the trial Court instituted OS No.4802/2023 seeking decree of permanent injunction against defendants in respect of the suit schedule - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 property. The suit schedule property comprises of a commercial building bearing PID No.2-151-41, Site No.6, BBMP new no. 41, measuring 5524.75 sq. ft. located at MES Road, Bahubali Nagar, Jalahalli, Bengaluru. 3. According to the appellant, the first respondent executed a mortgage cum lease deed dated 6.1.2018 in his favour for a period of eight years on receiving a sum of Rs.25 lakhs, and pursuant to the said agreement, the appellant was put in possession of the suit properties where he established a lodge and restaurant under the name `B.M.Residency'. The appellant claims to have made considerable investment in establishing the business and to have obtained necessary licences from the food safety and standards authority of India, GST Registration and also paying electricity charges for the aid premises. It was further contended, that on 21.7.2023 and 24.7.2023 the respondents attempted to forcibly dispossess him by disconnecting the electricity and threatening eviction prompting the appellant to seek protection from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 jurisdictional police who advised him to seek civil remedies. 4. On the strength of above assertions the appellant filed an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing from suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. 5. The first respondent, although he appeared through counsel, submitted that, he has no objection to the grant of temporary injunction. However, the second respondent contested the suit and filed a detailed written statement. He contended that, he was the registered GPA holder of the first respondent and one Praveen Chand, the co-owner of the property under a GPA dated 21.3.2018. Relying on the said authority, the second respondent had executed a registered sale deed dated 19.8.2021 in favour of M/s.VRR Investments Pvt.Ltd., for a consideration of Rs.4.5 crores pursuant to which, the possession of the suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 property was delivered to the purchaser, khata was transferred in the purchaser's name and taxes and electricity bills were paid accordingly. 6. The second respondent alleged that, the mortgage deed dated 6.1.2018 relied upon by the appellant was a forged and fabricated document and created in collusion with one S.S.Lokesh and that the signatures found therein did not belong to the first respondent. Furthermore, it was contended that, the said document was neither registered nor sufficiently stamped was styled as a mortgage deed, making it compulsorily registrable under law. 7. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and examining the documents held that, the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case. The Court observed that, the mortgage deed dated 6.1.2018 was written on Rs.200 stamp paper was unregistered, and was insufficiently stamped. The trial Court placed reliance on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Miss. Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels vs Miss. P Gunavathy reported in 2013 (1) KCCR 853 and Smt.Dyavamma Alias Sanna Mukkamma vs Smt. Balamma W/O Yallappa and others reported in ILR 2010 KAR 3280, wherein it was categorically held that, insufficiently stamped and unregistered documents cannot be acted upon even while considering to grant or refuse interim relief unless impounded. 8. The learned trial Court took note of the sale in favour of M/s.VRR Investments Pvt. Ltd., through a validly executed reg. sale deed by lawful attorney of the joint- owners and concluded that the appellant had failed to establish that, he was in lawful possession. Consequently, the application for temporary injunction was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant in addition to narrating the facts of the case would submit that, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 plaintiff assets that he is mortgagee in possession right from the year 2018. The documents so relied upon by the defendants are all concocted so as to suit their purpose and submits that, the possession of the plaintiff has to be protected as he is running a restaurant and invested huge amount. 10. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in RFA No.392/2023 decided on 30.09.2024 wherein it is held that, no person can be evicted without following due process of law. So also he relies upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1674 and submits that, even a trespasser in possession is entitled to protect his possession against the true owner, unless he is evicted by following due process of law. 11. As against this submission, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff observing that, he - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 is in possession of the property based upon inadmissible documents. He would submit that there is no proper pleadings pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint and the plaint allegations have to be proved in accordance with law. He submits that, when there is grant or refusal of temporary injunction, the court has to consider three components, prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship. He submits that, the principles with regard to grant of injunction are well settled. According to him, a person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. He submits that, a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to injunction against a rightful owner. In support of his submission, learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 and submits that, there is no merit in this appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order as well as the material placed on record, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. It is settled principle of law that, to grant temporary injunction Order under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPC, the plaintiff has to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable hardship if injunction is not granted. However, in the present case, the trial Court has rightly found that, the foundational documents relied upon by the appellant i.e. mortgage cum lease deed dated 6.10.2018 is neither registered nor sufficiently stamped and is therefore, inadmissible. This finding is in consonance with the binding precedents of this Court. Moreover, the appellant has not disputed that, the registered sale deed dated 19.8.2021 was executed by the lawful GPA holder of the owners in favour of M/s.VRR Investments Pvt.Ltd., and that the khata and tax receipts are also in the name of purchaser. Thus, the second respondent, being a Director of the said purchasing - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 company holds better title and right over the suit schedule property than the appellant whose claim is based on a defective and inadmissible document. 13. It is further to be noted that, the appellants attempt to secure temporary injunction in effect seeks to restrain the rightful owner and purchaser from asserting the rights which cannot be permitted by way of interim relief. Courts have time and again held that, interim relief cannot be granted when it amounts to granting the final relief itself or when the parties seeking such reliefs lack legal possession. 14. In view of the above discussion and upon overall assessment of the factual and legal matrix, this Court is of the considered opinion, the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in refusing temporary injunction and no interference is warranted with the impugned order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30307 MFA No. 6172 of 2023 15. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs by concurring the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 passed in OS No.4802/2023 by the XI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28