- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5289 OF 2024 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6236 OF 2024 IN MFA NO.5289 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. RANIYAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NEAR SHANI MAHATHMA TEMPLE DEVARA BEESANAHALLI BELLANDUR BANGALORE EAST TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 560 103 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANAND BEERANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: M.K. TRAVELS R/AT NO.10, SRIGANDHA NILAYA RUDRAPPA LAYOUT, IMMADIHALLI POST VIA WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066 REPRESNTED BY ITS PARTNERS SRI. A.N. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ADINARAYANAPPA T AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 SMT. MADHU W/O A.N. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.10, SRIGANDHA NILAYA RUDRAPPA LAYOUT, IMMADIHALLI POST VIA WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SREEVATSA S, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P. FREUD RICHARDSON, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 AND 3 IN OS.NO.2018/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA.NOS II AND III FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. IN MFA No.6236 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M.K. TRAVELS RESIDING AT NO.10, SRIGANDHA NILAYA RUDRAPPA LAYOUT, IMMADIHALLI POST VIA WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066 REPRESNTED BY ITS PARTNERS SRI. A.N. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ADINARAYANAPPA T AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SMT. MADHU W/O A.N. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.10 SRIGANDHA NILAYA RUDRAPPA LAYOUT, IMMADIHALLI POST VIA WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SREEVATSA S, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P. FREUD RICHARDSON, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RANIYAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR SHANI MAHATHMA TEMPLE DEVARA BEESANAHALLI BELLANDUR BANGALORE EAST TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 560 103 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANAND BEERANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II AND III IN OS.NO. 2018/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE IA NOS II AND III FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC THESE MFAs 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These two appeals arise from a common order dated 12.6.2024 rendered by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural Dist. in OS NO. 2018/2023, whereby the interim applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff seeking interim injunctive relief were rejected. The present appeals have been instituted under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC with the first appeal being at the instance of the plaintiff impugning the denial of temporary injunction and the second appeal by the defendant no.2 i.e., M/s.M.K.Travels challenging the findings of the trial Court to the extent that prima facie case was held in existance in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The suit before the trial Court was, instituted by Smt.Raniayamma who laid claim over the suit schedule property contending that, it originally belonged to her - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 great grand father one Narayana Bhovi who allegedly purchased the said property under registered sale deed 16.4.1944. According to the plaintiff, the property devolved upon her by way inheritance and she continued to remain in possession of the same. Her grievance is that, the defendants, particularly M/s.M.K.Travels in alleged collusion with other parties, fabricated and executed a fraudulent sale deed dated 5.12.2019 in order to usurp the suit schedule property thereby, interfering with her possession and property rights. 3. The defendants, particularly second defendant denied all allegations and assert their lawful ownership. It is her case that, the suit schedule property was first purchased by defendant no.1 under registered sale deed dated 7.8.2003 and thereafter, transferred by registered instrument dated 5.12.2019 in favour of M.K.Travels. In support of their claim, the defendants have produced the certified copy of registered sale deeds and mutation entries. Furthermore, these defendants draw attention to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 previous litigation filed by the plaintiff's husband in OS No.16/2005 which was dismissed on merits and the appeal there from (RA No.75/2018) was withdrawn. It is also contended that, the plaintiff's daughter has now instituted a parallel suit in OS No.2208/2023 raising similar claims over the same property thereby, evidencing collusion, multiplicity of proceedings and lack of bona fides on the part of plaintiff's family. 4. The learned trial Court while disposing of IA.s 1 and 3 formulated three points for consideration i.e. whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case; whether the balance of convenience was in her favour and whether she would suffer irreparable injury. 5. Having heard the arguments of both the side and on a careful appraisal of the pleadings, and documents, the learned trial Court answered the first point for consideration in the affirmative by holding that, triable issue existed. However, remaining two points for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 consideration above are answered in the negative leading to rejection of application with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- having called suppression of material facts. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts of the case, submissions of both the side and on meticulous evaluation of materials placed on record before this Court, it do emerges that, the trial Court has exercised its discretion judicially and no interference is warranted. While the trial Court has loosely observed that, a prima facie case exists, such an observation cannot be read in isolation or elevated to mean that the plaintiffs case was compelling enough to warrant interim protection. 7. In the realm of interim reliefs, it is trite that the grant of temporary injunction is governed by three cardinal principles i.e., (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience being in favor of the applicant and, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury if relief is denied. 8. These principles are not disjunctive but, cumulative and failure to satisfy any one of them would disentitle the applicant to the adequate relief. Injunction cannot be granted merely for asking. It is a discretionary remedy to be invoked sparingly only in favor of justice but not to perpetuate speculative or stale claims. In the case at hand, the plaintiff's entire claim is predicated upon an alleged sale deed of the year 1994 which she asserts was executed in favor of her great grand father. However, strikingly, neither the original nor any certified extract of such document is placed on record. There is no material to show that, the property in question never stood in the name of plaintiff or it was inherited lawfully by her through successive transfer. More particularly, no revenue or mutation records have been produced to establish her possession or ownership. On the contrary, the defendants have produced registered sale deed dating back to 2003 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 and 2019 which prima facie demonstrates a lawful chain of title. 9. These documents carry with them a presumption of genesis under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, rejection of O.S No.16/2005 filed by the plaintiff's husband and subsequent withdrawal of appeal therefrom are relevant. These facts are continuously absent in the plaint, which do indicate, not merely lapse in disclosure but, a deliberate attempt with material facts that would dissuade from granting equitable relief. The principle that 'he who seeks equity, must do equity and must come to the Court with clean hands' is not a mere legalism but a touchstone of all equitable jurisprudence. 10. Further more, the plaintiffs conduct is compounded by a pendency of a parallel suit (O.S No.2208/2023) filed by her daughter over the same subject matter. The institution of multiple proceedings by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 members of same family with overlapping causes of action raises a cloud over the bona fides of litigation. The courts have repeatedly deprecated such practices to foster judicial inefficiency and constitute an abuse of process of law. 11. As regards possession which is the corner stone of any suit for injunction, the plaintiff has failed, actual peaceful and continuous possession of the suit property. The pleadings are silent and the nature of occupation and no documents such as khatha, property certificate or electricity bill are produced to substantiate her possession. In contrast, the defendants not only have the ownership but, have also demonstrated that they are in settled possession. 12. The `doctrine of irreparable injury' also finds no application in the present case. The plaintiff's apprehensions are vague and speculative. No cogent material is placed to demonstrate that denial of injunction - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 would cause damage that cannot be compensated in monetary terms. The dispute essentially revolves around title and ownership and that if the plaintiff eventually succeeds in the suit, she would be adequately compensated as per law. 13. The existence of prima facie case by itself does not entitle a party an order of injunction. The other two facts balance of convenience and irreparable injury must also weigh decisively in favor of the applicant. In this context, the trial Court finding on these two limbs are not only unassailable but, supported by sound judicial reasoning. 14. The appeal filed by M/s.M.K.Travels in MFA No. 6236/24 which challenges of a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff though legally maintainable does not call for interference at this stage as the ultimate relief sought is the dismissal of the application, has already been granted by the trial Court. It is well established that, mere - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 expressions in a judgment cannot be dissected and challenged in the abstract unless they result in prejudice or affect in right. The impugned finding though losely worded does not undermine the overall findings of conclusion. 15. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in either of the appeals. The trial Court has judiciously exercised its discretion, has applied the settled principles of law and has considered the rival claims in proper perspective. There is no illegality, perversity or error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant appellate interference under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) Both MFA No.5289/2024 and MFA No.6236/2024 stand dismissed. (ii) The common order dated 12.6.2024 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in OS - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27527 MFA No. 5289 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 6236 of 2024 No. 2018/2023 rejecting IA. Nos. 2 and 3 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, is hereby affirmed. (iii) It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are confined to the consideration of the application for temporary injunction and shall not in any manner influence the final adjudication of the suit on merits. Under the circumstances, no order as to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48