- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30288 MFA No. 5567 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.5567 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K JAGADISHWAR S/O LATE J.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. SRI. K.NAGARAJU, S/O LATE J.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 3. SRI. K.PURUSHOTHAMA, S/O. LATE J.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 4. SMT. CHANCHULAKSHMI, D/O. LATE J.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 5. SRI. PREMKUMAR.K. S/O. LATE J.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 6. SRI. SOMASHEKAR, S/O. LATE N. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 7. SMT. GIRIJA, D/O. LATE N.ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 8. SMT. MANJULA, D/O. LATE N.ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 9. SRI.RAMAMURTHY, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30288 MFA No. 5567 of 2025 S/O. LATE N.ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 10. SRI. NAVEEN, S/O. LATE N.ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 11. SMT. RAMADEVI, D/O. LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR COLONY, AMBEDKAR STREET, BEHIND KEB OFFICE, SARJAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE – 562 125. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.THIMMEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI Y VENKATESH S/O. S.T.YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. SRI. Y.NARAYANASWAMY, S/O. LATE S.T.YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT VIDYANAGAR ROAD, BEHIND GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL, SARJAPURA VILLAGE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHASKAR C.R, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 02.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30288 MFA No. 5567 of 2025 O.S.NO.1063/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, REJECTING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 plaintiffs in O.S.No.1063/2024 have preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 02.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.2 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1063/2024 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal1, thereby, the application filed for seeking an order of temporary injunction is rejected and the application 1hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30288 MFA No. 5567 of 2025 filed for vacating the ad-interim 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. 4. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials produced before this Court. 5. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction to declare that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have claimed in the plaint by pleading the averment that originally one Syed Mohiddin Sab was the owner of the land to the extent of 02 acre 38 guntas situated at Sarjapura village and thereafter he had sold the said land to one Raheem Basha S/o Alaguru Khadar Sab on 10.04.1944. Thereafter, the said Raheem Basha sold the said land to the extent of 02 acres 38 guntas to one Ramaiah S/o of Yallappa @ Pillappa, through a sale deed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30288 MFA No. 5567 of 2025 dated 10.11.1944. Then Ramaiah sold the land in favour of grandmother of plaintiffs, namely Ramakka, in the year 1953 to the extent of 2 acre 27 guntas. Therefore, submitted that the plaintiffs have inherited the land. 6. It is the case of the defendants that the defendants’ grandfather namely Thimmarayappa S/o Muthappa, purchased the land to the extent of 27 guntas on 21.08.1944; therefore, there is a rival claim by both the plaintiffs and defendants over the land. The defendants have also filed a suit in O.S.No.654/2024 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. 7. The application filed by the plaintiffs in the present suit for grant of an order of temporary injunction is dismissed. 8. In the suit filed by the defendants in O.S.No.654/2024, the defendants herein, who are plaintiffs in the said suit, have filed an application for temporary injunction and initially an order of temporary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30288 MFA No. 5567 of 2025 injunction is granted. Subsequently, the said Court considering the fact that both the plaintiffs and defendants have filed their respective suits modified the grant of an order of temporary injunction into a status-quo, directing both the parties to maintain satus-quo as it is. Therefore, the defendants herein, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.654/2024 are enjoying an order of status-quo. 9. When this being the fact, if an order of status- quo is not granted in the present appeal, then it would cause prejudice to the rights of plaintiffs in O.S.No.1063/2024. Therefore, in this case also, it is necessary to pass an order of status-quo directing both the parties to maintain the status-quo. Since in O.S.No.654/2024, an order of status-quo is granted, in the present case also, the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled an order of status-quo directing both the parties to maintain status-quo. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 10. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30288 MFA No. 5567 of 2025 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. Both the parties shall maintain status-quo as on today, so far as the nature of possession is concerned. iii. The Trial Court shall dispose of the case on its merits without being influenced by whatever observations made above, as well as on the basis of the submissions and some materials produced in the appeal. iv. The Trial Court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the suits as early as possible. v. No order as to costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47