- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6190 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. LATE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SRI. SIDDAGANGAIAH S, S/O. LATE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. SRI. S. GANGARAJU, S/O. LATE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT: ADIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI LAKSHMIPATHIAH S/O. N. KAMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. SRI K. VIJAYKUMAR S/O N KAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 3. SRI K. NARASANNA S/O N KAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT. OBALAPURA VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. 4. SRI SUDHAKAR S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT. OBALAPURA VILLAGE THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. 5. SMT. REKHA K.N W/O SHIVAKUMAR D AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2036 2ND CROSS PIPELINE ROAD PRASHANTHNAGAR, T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057. 6. SRI R. MAHADEVAGOWDA S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28/1, 9TH CROSS 6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003. 7. SMT. NIRMALA NARAYANA KUTTI WIFE OF P. NARAYAN KUTTI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.10, ANUGRAHA 5TH A CROSS, 2ND STAGE, 8TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560 072. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 8. SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2 IN CP 16090/25; SRI. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.1253/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. 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. This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.1253/2024 challenging the order dated 18.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.II filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1253/2024 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala1, thereby, the application filed for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction was allowed. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit schedule ‘B’ property and the transactions between the defendants are not binding on the plaintiffs and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs are claiming that one Nanjundappa was the original owner of the land measuring 11 acre 17 guntas including 1 acre karab land in Sy.No.4/2 of Jakkasandra Village, Thyamangondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The said Nanjundappa has sold the northern 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 portion of the land measuring 6 acre 11 guntas of land in favour of Nanjaiah S/o. Narasanna by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.09.1952. On the very same day, the said Nanjundappa has sold another portion of the land measuring 3 acre 38 guntas in favour of Rudrappa S/o. Rudrappa and 0.08 guntas of land to one Yajaman Rudramuniayappa on the very same day i.e., on 11.09.1952. Thus, the said Nanjundappa has exhausted the land and since then, the purchasers have been in possession and ownership of possession is continued to their successors. 5. When this being the fact, the very same owner Nanjundappa had sold 3 acre 38 guntas of land in the very same Sy.No.4/2 in favour of Rudrappa S/o. Mariyallappa through registered sale deed dated 20.10.1953. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are tracing their title through Rudrappa S/o. Mariyallappa. The plaintiffs are tracing their claim through Nanjappa S/o. Narasanna. Therefore, the plaintiffs are claiming that after purchasing the suit property as above - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 stated the respective legal heirs of the original purchaser have continued their ownership and possession over the suit land, including the suit schedule ‘B’ property. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that when defendant Nos.2 to 4 have started interference with the possession of the plaintiffs since the defendants are tracing their title through Rudrappa S/o. Mariyallappa of which the sale deed is subsequent to 11.09.1952 and since Rudrappa S/o. Mariyallappa had purchased the land to the extent of 3 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.4/2 in the year 1953. Therefore, the remedy is through Rudrappa S/o. Mariyallappa as he has subsequently purchased the property in the year 1953. 7. Further submitted that the phodi work made by the revenue department on which the defendants claim based is wrong claim that the land is different by assigning phodi numbers and which is under challenge before the Revenue Authorities and also for the phodi work done in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 respect of Sy.No.4/2 is stayed and is sub judice before the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, submitted that the Trial Court has rightly passed an order of temporary injunction. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/defendant Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the defendants title is tracing through Rudrappa S/o. Mariyallappa as he has purchased the properties from Nanjundappa on 20.10.1953 and since then, defendant Nos.2 to 4 are in continuous possession over the suit property and placing reliance of documents of RTC extracts and submitted that these defendants are in continued possession over the suit schedule ‘B’ properties. Further submitted that the sale deed executed by Nanjundappa in favour of Rudrappa S/o. Mariyallappa dated 11.09.1952 is not acted upon at all. 9. Further submitted that the defendants land bearing Sy.No.4/2A, whereas the plaintiffs are owners of the land bearing Sy.No.4/2B, but the plaintiffs have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 started interference with the possession of the defendants. In this regard, the Trial Court has committed an error in not considering the materials placed before it, rendering erroneous order allowing the application filed for temporary injunction. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. 10. Having heard the arguments of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points would arise for my consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant Nos.2 to 4 demonstrate that plaintiffs fail to make out prima facie case on the materials produced before the Trial Court granting an order of temporary injunction? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant Nos.2 to 4 demonstrate that the plaintiffs fail to make out balance of convenience on the materials produced before the Trial Court to grant an order of temporary injunction? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant Nos.2 to 4 demonstrate that the plaintiffs will not suffer any loss and injury in case an exparte order of temporary injunction is not granted? iv. Whether, the order passed of granting order of temporary injunction requires interference by this Court? 11. It is not disputed that the originally the land bearing Sy.No.4/2 measuring 11 acre 17 guntas including 1 acre of karab land. It is not in dispute that Nanjundappa sold northern portion of the land measuring 6 acre 11 guntas out of 11 acre 17 guntas in Sy.No.4/2 in favour of one Nanjaiah S/o. Narasanna through a registered sale deed dated 11.09.1952. Further on the very same day, i.e., 11.09.1952, Nanjundappa sold another portion of land measuring 3 acre 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.4/2 in favour of Rudrappa S/o. Rudrappa. Also the said Nanjundappa sold remaining land of 0.08 guntas of land in Sy.No.4/2 in favour of Yajaman Rudramuniayappa. Thus, the said - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 Nanjundappa exhausted all the lands. These facts are not disputed by the defendants. 12. When this being the fact, Nanjundappa once again sold the land to the extent of 3 acre 38 guntas in the same Sy.No.4/2 out of 11 acre 17 guntas to one Rudrappa S/o. Mariyallappa which was already sold to Rudrappa S/o. Rudrappa. It is submission made by the counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.2 to 4 that the said sale deed dated 11.09.1952 so far as land to the extent of 3 acre 38 guntas was not acted upon. Just because the name of the purchaser, Rudrappa S/o. Rudrappa was not mutated based on the registered sale deed that is not the fault of the purchaser as it is the mandatory duty casted on the Revenue Authorities to mutate the name of purchaser under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the KLR Act’). 13. Just because, the purchaser’s name, namely Rudrappa S/o. Rudrappa and his legal heirs, was not - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 mutated, it cannot be said that the sale deed dated 11.09.1952 to the extent of 3 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.4/2 was not acted upon. As stated above admittedly, the original survey number of the land is Sy.No.4/2 to the extent of 11 acre 17 guntas, including 1 acre karab land. The entire 11 acre 17 guntas of land was sold out to various persons by one Nanjundappa as above stated. The plaintiffs are tracing their claim through Nanjaiah S/o. Narasanna. Subsequently, the land bearing Sy.No.4/2 was phoded and assigned survey phodi numbers. The plaintiffs challenged the order of phodi before the Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR), Bengaluru and the authority granted a stay on the phodi work done to the land bearing Sy.No.4/2 (old), 4/2A (new) to the extent of 3 acre 38 guntas. 14. When this assigning phodi numbers is under challenge, the contention of the appellants/defendant Nos.2 to 4 that the land bearing Sy.No.4/2A and 4/2B are different lands, cannot be accepted. The learned counsel - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 for the appellants/defendant Nos.2 to 4 are placed reliance on the RTC extracts that the land bearing Sy.No.4/2A to 4/2C belongs to the defendants. However, the same phodi survey is under challenge before the DDLR and phodi work done so far as the land to the extent 11 acre 17 guntas is under challenge and the said order of phodi assigning the phodi number as Sy.No.4/2A is stayed. 15. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS2, possession follows title. The defendants do not disputed that the plaintiffs are tracing claim through Nanjaiah S/o. Narasanna, who purchased the land to the extent of 6 acre 11 guntas, which is not in dispute. Therefore, the Trial Court has observed that the defendants are claiming the land of the plaintiffs on the guise of phodi numbers, which are under litigation before the Revenue Authorities. Hence, the Trial Court is correct in its observation that upon 2 2008 AIR SCW 2692 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 considering the documents placed regarding RTC extracts, revenue documents, survey phodi sketches, mutations from the year 1960-61 to 2001-02, all of which consistently show the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title. 16. When this being the fact, the suit is filed for declaration to claim ownership over the suit schedule land. Thus, the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and balance of convenience. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly granted an order of temporary injunction and the plaintiffs have established prima facie case. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) to (iv) in the Negative. Therefore, there is no perversity found in the order passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court, while considering the application has correctly considered the documents and there is no perversity found in the order warranting interference. Therefore, the appeal filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 is liable to be dismissed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35402 MFA No. 6190 of 2025 17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35