- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30324 MFA No. 6871 of 2022 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. 6871 OF 2022 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT MUTHU RAJAMMA @ RAJAMMA D/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH W/O SRI GANGANNA AGED 62 YEARS 2. SMT. PREMA W/O LATE SRI VENKATESH MAJOR 3. SRI BYREGOWDA S/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH AGED 49 YEARS 4. SMT. SRIDEVI D/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH W/O SRI PAPANNA AGED 32 YEARS APPELLANT NoS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.5, MUTHU NILAYA, 1ST CROSS NEAR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ABBIGERE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560090 5. SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH AGED 54 YEARS Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30324 MFA No. 6871 of 2022 6. SRI MANOHAR K S/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH AGED 34 YEARS 7. SMT. YASHODHA D/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH W/O LATE SRI KIRAN KUMAR AGED 34 YEARS APPELLANTS Nos.5 TO 7 ARE R/AT NO.4, DEVI NILAYA, 1ST CROSS NEAR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ABBIGERE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560090 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B SOMASHEKAR AGED 45 YEARS R/AT 9TH K MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560040 2. SRI UMESH N S/O SRI NAGARAJU AGED 38 YEARS R/AT AMMAJI ENCLAVE, 8TH CROSS MAHESHWARINAGAR T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE – 560057 3. SRI MUTHU RAJU K S/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH AGED 60 YEARS 4. SMT. MANGLAMMA D/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH W/O SRI MUTHURAJ AGED 48 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30324 MFA No. 6871 of 2022 RESPONDENT Nos.3 & 4 ARE R/AT NO.5, MUTHU NILAYA, 1ST CROSS NEAR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ABBIGERE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560090 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGANATHA K L., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. G. CHANDRAHASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R3 & R4 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 5403/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCCH.11). REJECTING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.1 passed in O.S.No.5403/2021 dated 30.07.2022 on the file of VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that the suit land was granted to their father by the Government under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30324 MFA No. 6871 of 2022 Darkasth Rules to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas and their father’s name Sri. Kempaiah continued in the RTCs in respect of the suit property, and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as a grantee. The suit is filed against the defendants, stating that the defendants are trying to encroach upon the possession of the plaintiffs over the property. Therefore, filed a suit for permanent injunction. 3. The plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Initially, the learned trial judge passed an exparte order on temporary injunction and later dismissed the I.A.No.1 and vacated the interim order. Being aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.1, by the learned trial judge, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that their father Sri. Kempaiah was granted land bearing Sy.No.13, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas, Abbigere village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore, by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30324 MFA No. 6871 of 2022 Government under Darkasth scheme dated 13.03.1979. It is stated that the original grant order was lost. Hence, the said order of grant is not before the Court. The plaintiffs have not produced the copy of the order of grant. It is stated that the defendants are claiming to have purchased the neighbouring land and the defendants are trying to encroach upon the property of the plaintiffs. 5. Previously, the plaintiffs’ father Sri. Kempaiah has filed a petition in W.P.No.2600/2001 seeking to consider the application for regularization to the extent of 30 guntas of land only. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2001, has directed the Tahasildar to place the application before the Land Grant Committee for consideration of the application and directed the committee to consider the application and pass an appropriate order. But there is no material placed before the trial Court or before this Court regarding what has happened to the application. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30324 MFA No. 6871 of 2022 6. In the said writ petition, the application is sought for the regularisation of 30 guntas of land only, but in the plaint, the plaintiffs asserted that he is in possession of 1 acre 10 guntas. Therefore, the question is how the plaintiffs are claiming 20 guntas of extra land. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that defendant No.1 encroached on the entire suit property and further encroached on the land to an extent of 15 feet on the northern side of the suit property. 8. It is stated that the defendant No.1 has already encroached on the suit property and is in possession of the property. If the plaintiffs are claiming they are the owners of the property, then they have to seek an appropriate remedy for possession of the property. 9. Therefore, prima facie, it is shown that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30324 MFA No. 6871 of 2022 injunction. Hence, there is no need for interference in the order passed by the trial Court. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending applications if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19