- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.26228 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. S.N. RAJAPRABHU S/O LATE NARASARAJU S.M. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT. NO.106, PADMASHREE PRESIDENCY, 23RD MAIN, 17TH CROSS SHAMANNA CIRCLE MUNISWAMYRAJU ROAD J.P. NAGAR, 5TH PHASE BENGALURU-560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 SRI. C. PRABHAKARAN S/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 2. SMT. C. DEEPA W/O C. PRABHAKARAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT. NO.177 4TH CROSS, MEI COLONY LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SUHAS S, ADVOCATE) - 2 - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN MA NO.40/2020 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND IN O.S.NO.710/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU & ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 28.10.2022 in M.A. No.40/2020 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and also to set aside the order dated 17.03.2020 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w section 151 of CPC in O.S.No. 710/2019 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. The Petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court and Appellant before the first appellate court. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the Defendants no. 1 & 2 - 3 - respectively before the trial court and Respondents No.1 and 2 respectively before the first appellate Court. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of property bearing No. 37, ‘B’ Khata No. 5396, Old Sy. No. Assessment No. 47, 48, 49,51, 52 & 53 present No. 52/1A, BBMP ward No.40, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 100 feet measuring east to west 30 feet and North to south 100 feet consisting of 2 square AC Sheet house, situated at Kariobanahalli, Yashwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore and the plaintiff has acquired title over the schedule property by way of registered sale deed dated 16.02.2019 bearing document no. YPR-1-07037-2018/19 stored in CD No. YPRD229 registered in the office of the sub-registrar, Rajajinagar (Yeshwanthpur) Bengaluru and was put to possession of the said property on the date of sale deed. The BBMP has also issued ‘B’ Khata for the schedule property in the name of the plaintiff. - 4 - General Power of Attorney coupled with interest dated 28.02.1996 was executed by A Venkatesh in favour of A Gopal. By virtue of the said GPA, A Gopal acquired the entire property bearing No. 37, in old Sy. No. 47,48,49,51,52, & 53 present No. 52/1A, measuring East to West 120 feet and North to South 100 feet. The said A Gopal was in possession and enjoyment of the property and the khata was in his name as well. A Gopal has alienated the western portion of the property measuring East to West 90 feet and North to South 100 feet to one venkatalakshmamma through the registered sale deed dated 09.08.2004. After the alienation, the said Venkatalakshmamma has constructed a building in the property measuring East to West 40 feet and North South 100 feet which she further alienated one kumuda. In the meanwhile, A Gopal had retained the Eastern portion of the property, which he gifted to his brother A Padmaraju by way of Registered Gift Deed dated 09.05.2017. Padmaraju has further alienated a portion of the said property, i.e., the schedule property by way of - 5 - sale deed dated 16.02.2019 to the plaintiff. Thus the revenue entries for the larger extent of the property stood in the name of A gopal, Venkatalakshmamma, Kumuda, A Padmaraju and the Plaintiff. As matter stood thus, the defendants started interfering with the Plaintiffs possession on 02.05.2019 which warranted the plaintiffs possession on 02.05.2019 which warranted the plaintiff to file a suit in O.S.No. 710/2019 for bare injunction against the Respondent along with application for temporary injunction. Respondent on entering appearance, filed written statement and prayed for dismissal of suit and prayed for the dismissal of I.A.No.2 filed under order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 r/w Scetion 151 of CPC. Trial Court having heard both the sides dimissed I.A.No.2 by an order dated 17.03.2020. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff/petitioner herein has preferred Appeal in M.A.No. 40/2020 before III Additional Senior Civil Judge. The Appellate judge by an order dated 28.10.2022 has confirmed order passed by the Trial Judge - 6 - on I.A.No.2 and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard Counsels for both the sides. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the courts below have failed to consider the title conferred upon by the plaintiff by virtue of the sale deed dated 16.02.2019 and the fact that the Khata over the schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff and first Appellate Court has erred in coming to a finding that GPA through which the vendor of the plaintiff has attained title under cloud. It was further contended that the Appellate Court has erred in coming to a finding that there are no rival claims of the vendors or any predecessors in title or any other person claiming title under the said GPA holder or the executor of the GPA holder. 6. It was also contended that the Learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court have failed to consider that the defendant is attempting to mislead the court by - 7 - associating irrelevant documents to the schedule property and claiming rights over the same. 7. It was further contended that the trial Court has failed provide any valid reasons in passing the order and failed to put forth whether prima facie case has been filed or not; why the balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiff and failed to address inconvenience that would be caused to the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has also failed follow the principles laid down by Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs P Buchi Reddy reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033. 8. It was also contended that the Trail Court has failed to consider the fact that the interim order of stay against the defendants till disposal of the suit would only assist the court in deciding the matter on all points of controversy. 9. It was further contended that the Appellate Court has recognized that the plaintiff is claiming relief in respect of site No.37 and the defendants are claiming reliefs in - 8 - respect of site no. 6 and that to decide the reliefs sought by the plaintiff appreciation of the documents produced with respect to site No.37 are sufficient and despite the same Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the documents produced by the plaintiff to show his title and possession over the schedule property. 10. It was also contended that the Trial Court and Appellate Court have erred in coming to the conclusion that the documents produced are not sufficient and that those documents are to be proved as per procedure established by law. 11. It can be observed from the order of the First Appellate Court in M.A.No. 40/2020 that the Appellate Court has observed that, by reading plaint schedule property and written schedule property, plaintiff is claiming the relief in respect of site no.37 and the defendants are claiming reliefs in respect of site no.6 and so to decide on the reliefs, documents produced in respect of the site no. 37 would be sufficient and documents in respect of site no.6 would not be necessary. - 9 - 12. By relying upon Anathula Sudhakar vs P Buchi Reddy reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033, the appellate court held that in the instant case, the defendants/respondents seriously disputed the title of the plaintiff/appellant, existence of the disputed property and possession of the plaintiff/appellant over the disputed property and such being the case, principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court is properly applicable to the present case. 13. The First Appellate Court by observing that when the vendor of the plaintiff failed to obtain the injunction, plaintiff failed the suit for injunction, held that plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing the facts. 14. Ultimately, the appellate court held that the title of the plaintiff, existence of disputed property and possession of the plaintiff over disputed property are under the cloud and dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by trial Court on I.A.No.2. - 10 - 15. It can be observed from the order of the trial court on I.A.No.2 that the Trial Court has held, on perusal of materials on record, that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from one A.Padmaraju who is a vendor of the suit schedule property and after that he has obtained B-Khatha from BBMP 22/2/2019 and plaintiff has then produced the encumbrance certificate for the years 1989-2004 but plaintiff purchased the property from the vendor on 16.02.2019 after which the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction. Ultimately, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case on respect of I.A.No. 2 and held further that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and rejected the application. 16. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsels for both the parties, on perusal of the material placed on record and on perusal of the impugned Order dated 28.10.2022 in M.A. No.40/2020 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and also to set aside the Order dated 17.03.2020 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule - 11 - 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC in O.S.No. 710/2019 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, it appears that the above Order is well reasoned Orders and no need to intervene in the impugned Orders. 17. The writ petitioner fails to substantiate his contentions and there is no perversity or erroneousness in the Order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-adp