- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3634 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.M.RAGHU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.26/1, 1ST FLOOR, BENSON TOWN, BENSON ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 046 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. P.MUNIYAPPA AGED 71 YEARS, S/O LATE POOJAPPA, 2. SRI. UDAY KUMAR. M, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE P MUNIYAPPA, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.104, SARAIPALYA (VIDYA SAGARA), THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, DR SRK NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 077. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.H, THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2(NOC); SRI. HARISHA O.K, ADVOCATE FOR R1(NOC)) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024 THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.03.02.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7168/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-19), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.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 the consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 03.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.7168/2022 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19)1, thereby, the application filed seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction was dismissed. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. It is the case of plaintiff that he has become the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered Will executed by his father in the year 1993. The plaintiff’s father had purchased the said suit schedule property in the year 1946. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s father had executed the registered Will in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has become the owner and in continuous possession and in enjoyment over the suit schedule property, but defendant No.1 without having any competency and authority of law had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, who is none other than the son of defendant No.1, but basically, defendant No.1 did not have competency to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 12.12.2018 and General Power of Attorney (for short ‘the GPA’) executed by defendant No.1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024 in favour of defendant No.2 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. 5. In the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application I.A.No.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to grant an ad-interim exparte temporary injunction restraining defendant No.2 from changing the nature/status and alienating the suit schedule property by creating third party rights, but the said application was dismissed. 6. It is the case of the respondents/defendants and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants argued that the plaintiff had executed agreement of sale, GPA and an affidavit in favour of defendant No.1; therefore, on the basis of these documents, the plaintiff had transferred his right of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 05.05.1997 and sworn affidavit on 04.11.1997. Hence, when defendant No.1 had acquired the right, title - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024 and interest over the suit schedule property, subsequently, the sale deed was made in favour of defendant No.2, who is the son of defendant No.1 and since then, defendants are in continuous possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, justified the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application I.A.No.I filed seeking to grant an ad-interim exparte temporary injunction. 7. Heard the arguments from both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, the following point would arise for my consideration: “Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, is it required to issue directions to both the parties to maintain status-quo so far as possession is concerned as on today?” 8. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s father had acquired the suit schedule property in the year 1946 and in the year 1993, the plaintiff’s father had bequeathed the suit schedule property through a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024 registered Will in favour of plaintiff; hence, it is submitted that there is no dispute regarding the Will. Thus, in this way, the plaintiff is claiming title and ownership over the suit schedule property and also stated that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and in this regard, he has produced the tax paid receipts. 9. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff had executed the registered sale deed dated 05.05.1997 through GPA and also an affidavit dated 04.11.1997, which had conveyed the title and possession in favour of defendant No.1. Then, defendant No.1 had sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 through registered sale deed dated 12.12.2018 and also khatha was changed in the name of defendant No.2. Hence, it is submitted that defendant No.2 is the owner of the suit schedule property and is in continuous possession and has produced the khatha certificate issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘the BBMP’) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024 showing the name of defendant No.2 as the owner of the suit schedule property. 10. When considering the above facts, the question for consideration before the Trial Court is “whether there is valid conveyance of title in favour of defendant No.1 through GPA, agreement of sale and an affidavit”. It is trite law that mere agreement of sale and affidavit do not convey title. Further, the GPA on which defendant No.2 is relying is unregistered GPA; hence, whether through unregistered GPA, the title can be conveyed is a question to be tried in the suit before the Trial Court, but the plaintiff at this stage has produced the sale deed that the plaintiff’s father had purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1946 and thereafter, in the year 1993, the plaintiff’s father had bequeathed the suit schedule property through Will in favour of plaintiff. Thus, in this way, both the plaintiff and defendants are claiming title. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024 11. Considering these aspects, when the above aspects are to be considered in the trial, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case that he has title as per the Will. 12. On the other hand, the said GPA on which defendant No.2 is relying, is unregistered one. Furthermore, both the plaintiff and defendants are claiming that they are in possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has produced the tax paid receipts and on the other hand, the defendants have produced the tax paid khatha receipts. 13. Further, the Trial Court committed error in stating that the plaintiff has not made any pleading in the plaint that defendant No.2 is in possession, but it is not correct observation made by the Trial Court that in Paragraph No.11 of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that he had been and is in continuous possession till today; therefore, the plaintiff has made an averment in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024 the plaint that he is in possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, under these circumstances, the suit schedule property is vacant site and there is a rival claim of possession; therefore, it is just and proper to direct both the parties to maintain status-quo so far as possession is concerned as on today accordingly, I answer point in the Affirmative. Thus, the appeal is liable to be disposed oFf by directing both the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession over the suit schedule property as on today. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off. 15. Whatever the observations made above are only for the purpose of considering the application of temporary injunction 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 the evidence from both the sides - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024 independently without being influenced by any of the observations made above as expeditious as possible. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31