- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54444 MFA No. 8573 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8573 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B.C.MAHESH AGED 50 YEARS, S/O LATE B P CHANNA-KESHAVASHETTY NO. 55/4, COLES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER OF APPELLANT NO. 2 TO 4 2. SMT. B.R. BHAGYAMMA AGED 68 YEARS, W/O LATE B P CHANNA-KESHAVASHETTY NO. G-1327, 10TH CROSS, CENTRAL TOWNSHIP, HAL COLONY, BENGALURU – 560 005. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER OF APPELLANT NO. 1 3. SRI. B.C. VISHWANATH AGED 48 YEARS, S/O LATE B P CHANNA-KESHAVASHETTY NO. G-1327, 10TH CROSS, CENTRAL TOWNSHIP, HAL COLONY, BENGALURU– 560 005. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER OF APPELLANT NO. 1 4. SMT. B.C.BHAVANI AGED 41 YEARS, W/O B H KUMAR, D/O LATE B P CHANNA-KESHAVASHETTY, S. BIDARE VILLAGE, AND POST, KADUR TQ Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54444 MFA No. 8573 of 2023 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO. 1 GPA HOLDER. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER SAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISION, SAKALESHPURA, SAKALESHPURA TQ HASSAN DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR BELUR TALUK, BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT. 5. THE HEADMASTER THE GOVERNMENT BOYS HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, BELUR TALUK, BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT. 6. THE CHIEF OFFICER THE TOWN MUNICIPAL, COUNCIL NEAR BUS STAND, BELUR TONW, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY AGA FOR R1 TO R5; R6 IS SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.03.10.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.3,4 AND 6 IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54444 MFA No. 8573 of 2023 O.S.NO.91/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, DISMISSING IA NO.3, 4 AND 6 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.4 IN TIME. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUEMNTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.91/2023 challenging the order dated 03.10.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.III, IV and VI filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.91/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, Hassan1, thereby, the applications filed seeking to grant orders of temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from interfering with and changing the nature of the suit schedule property (land) were dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54444 MFA No. 8573 of 2023 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property having acquired the same from ancestors, father and grandfather and in the revenue records, the names of father and grandfather of the plaintiffs have been continued since the year 1921; therefore, the plaintiffs are claiming to be the owners of the suit schedule land since the year 1921. 4. The plaintiffs, with an allegation that the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs; therefore, filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have filed applications seeking to grant orders of temporary injunctions, but these were dismissed on the reason that the Assistant Commissioner (for short ‘the AC’) had cancelled the mutation entries of the plaintiffs by the order dated 26.07.2017 and entered the name of the Government and also, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants relied on the order dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54444 MFA No. 8573 of 2023 04.08.2011 passed by this Court in the case of SRI. B.P. CHANNA KESHWAVA SHETTY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS2. Therefore, dismissed the applications filed for temporary injunctions. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the suit schedule land is the Government land and the AC has initiated the proceedings under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the KLR Act, 1964’) and after enquiry, it is held that the suit schedule land is Government land and upon appreciation of this material, the Trial Court has dismissed the applications and justified the order passed by the Trial Court. 6. Having heard the arguments of both the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points would arise for my consideration: 2 W.P.Nos.18060-62 of 2011 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54444 MFA No. 8573 of 2023 i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/plaintiffs make out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/plaintiffs make out balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the appellants/plaintiffs would be put into irreparable loss or injury? iv. Whether the orders passed by the Trial Court dismissing the applications of temporary injunction requires any interference from this Court? 7. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule land having inherited the same from their father and grandfather since the year 1921 and their names have been continued in the revenue records since the year 1921 and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54444 MFA No. 8573 of 2023 restraining the defendants, their men, agents or anybody from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land, but the defendants are claiming that the suit schedule land is the Government land and accordingly the AC has initiated the proceedings under Section 67 of the KLR Act, 1964, and passed order on 01.09.1993 declaring that the Government is the owner of the suit schedule land and further declared that the suit schedule land is vested with the Government. 8. The said order was challenged in W.P.Nos.18060-62 of 2011 before this Court and this Court, on 04.08.2011 dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner. Against the order passed in the said writ petitions, an appeal in W.A.No.17013-17015 of 2011 was filed before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ appeal on 04.09.2019 and given liberty to the plaintiff to file suit and establish the title. Therefore, upon this cause of action arose, the plaintiffs - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54444 MFA No. 8573 of 2023 have filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. 9. It is pertinent to note here that before passing the order by the AC vesting the land with the Government under Section 67 of the KLR Act, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner (for short ‘the DC’) passed an order of conversion, converting the land agriculture into non- agriculture for residential purpose. Hence, this prima facie case shows that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit schedule land. This factual aspect is not disputed by the Government Advocate. Therefore, when there is a rival claim of title between the plaintiffs and defendants and the plaintiffs have shown prima facie case that they are in possession over the suit schedule land since the year 1921, these factors constitute prima facie case and balance of convenience to grant orders of temporary injunctions and if orders of temporary injunctions are not granted, then the plaintiffs would be put into loss and injury in case they are dispossessed from the suit schedule - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54444 MFA No. 8573 of 2023 land. Hence, I answer point Nos.(i) to (iv) in the Affirmative. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of orders of temporary injunctions as prayed for in the applications I.A.Nos.III, IV and VI. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 10. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated 03.10.2023 passed on I.A.Nos.III, IV and VI filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.91/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, Hassan, is hereby set aside. iii. It is hereby ordered that there shall be an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from changing/ altering the nature of the suit schedule land and from putting up any construction on the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54444 MFA No. 8573 of 2023 suit schedule land by maintaining the status- quo with regard to possession as on today over the suit schedule land. iv. The suit is of the year 2023; hence, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year. v. All contentions are left open. Whatever the observations are made above are only for the purpose of considering the applications of temporary injunctions and shall not be considered as discussions and merits involved in the case; hence, the Trial Court is directed to consider the suit in accordance with law after receiving evidence from both sides independently, without being influenced by any of the observations made above. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28