- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6225 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA W/O SRI. SHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 2514/S AND T HAMPINAGAR RAILWAY LINE NEAR SWIMMING POOL BAPUJINAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE BANGALORE 560 040 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHESHADRI ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 2 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560 002 3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BINNY PET DIVISION BANGALORE-560 053 4 . THE REVENUE OFFICER VIJAYANAGAR SUB DIVISION Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 ZONAL OFFICE, RPC LAYOUT RAILWAY CHORD ROAD VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560 040 5 . SMT. NAGARATHANA W/O SRIRAMU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 124 E CROSS ROAD BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560 026 6 . SRI. M.K. RAMAIAH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT 74/3 HEGGANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 091 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPI G.A, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6; SRI. B.S. SATYANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4; VIDE ORDER DTD.23.04.2025 NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 5669/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-41), DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS MFA 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellant herein has preferred the present Misc.First appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, 1908 challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 2.9.2024 passed by the 40th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-41) in OS No.5669/2024. By the said impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the appellant's application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendants therein who are the respondents in the present appeal from dispossessing her from the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the original suit. 2. The appellant, who was the plaintiff before the trial Court had instituted the suit seeking relief of declaration that, the registered sale deed dated 14.9.2018 executed by the Bengaluru Development Authority (in short `BDA') in favour of respondent no.6 and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 possession certificated 19.9.2018 issued to him are not binding upon her to the extent of her possessive rights over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further sought a permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering with her possession or from dispossessing her without following due process of law. In support of grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff contended that, she has been in continuous, peaceful possession and occupation of suit schedule property since the year 2009, wherein, she along with her husband has been engaged in vending tender coconut. She also asserted that, she has been regularly paying ground rent, water tax and other municipal levies to the BDA and the BBMP and that various representations made by her to regularize the property in her favour have remained pending without appropriate consideration. 3. The learned trial Court, upon evaluation of the materials on record and after hearing both the parties concluded that, the appellant had failed to establish any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 prima facie case in her favour had not shown that balance of convenience was in her favour, and also has not proved that, she would be subjected to irreparable injury if the relief of temporary injunction is not granted. The trial Court found that, the appellant had not produced sufficient documents to substantiate her actual possession of the suit property as on the date of suit and further took note of the fact that, the BDA had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent no.6 and issued a possession certificate thereby, lawfully transferring title and possession. 4. Challenging this reasoning, now the appellant is before this Court contending that, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the long standing possession of the appellant and the fact that, the registered document in favour of respondent no.6 were not binding on her in light of her prior occupation and representations seeking regularization. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that, the order under challenge is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 contrary to settled principles governing the grant of injunction and resulted in grave injustice to the person in possession without affording an opportunity to protect such possession. He would further submit that, even the plaintiff is branded as rank trespasser, she cannot be evicted without following due process of law. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for contesting respondent and BDA justified the impugned order and the findings thereon. They would submit that, the BDA has allotted the schedule property in favour of respondent no.6 and respondent no.6 is in possession of property by virtue of the possession certificate. This possession certificate is preceded by executing the registered sale deed. This contention has been taken up by the BDA not only in this case but also in the Writ Petition No.49058/2017 which was disposed of by the coordinate bench of this Court. A copy is produced by the learned counsel for the BDA. The counsel for respondent no.6 submits that, it is respondent no.6 who had purchased the scheduled property on its - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 allotment and BDA had executed the registered sale deed and has issued the possession certificate. He submits that, merely because the plaintiff is vending the coconuts in the schedule property that would not mean that she is in settled possession of the property. He further submits, merely because she filed application for regularization of her possession allotment of the property, etc. would not help her. As of now no such representation is pending before any forum much less, BDA. When BDA has executed the sale deed in favour of Respondent no.6, automatically claim of plaintiff in respect of the scheduled property goes away and her claim is nullified as per the orders passed in the writ petition. Therefore, the counsel for the respondents submit that there is no merit in this appeal. 6. Having heard the submissions of both the parties, this Court has meticulously examined the appeal memo, the impugned order and the records of the trial Court which are made available. This Court is of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 considered opinion that, there is no merit in this appeal for the following reasons: Upon such examination of records, it emerges that, the foundational premise of the appellant's claim is her alleged uninterrupted possession of suit schedule property for more than 15 years, during which, she carried on a petty vending business (coconut selling) and paid certain charges to civic bodies that too in Bengaluru One. However, the legal implications of her possession must be appreciated in the context of authoritative ownership established through registered documentation. This Court notes that, the appellant had earlier approached this Court in WP No.49058/2017 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to consider her representation and to allow her to continue vending operations at the suit site. The co-ordinate bench of this Court while disposing of Writ Petition on 16.11.2023, declined to interfere and recorded that, the property in question has already been alienated by the BDA in favour of the third party namely, respondent - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 no.6 and granted liberty to the appellant to approach the civil Court for any remedy that may be available to her in law. The very fact that, this Court, at that stage, did not grant any protection or status quo, and that the registered sale deed has already been executed in the year 2018 in favour of respondent no.6 is indicative of appellant's precarious legal position. In this appeal, the appellant relies heavily on payment of ground rent and water bills as evidence of possession. These documents by themselves do not confer any proprietary or possessive rights in the absence of formal allotment or recognition by the statutory authority. The counsel for the appellant much relies upon note prepared by the BDA based upon the representation of the appellant. It is mentioned that, appellant is asserting her possession over the property but, there is no further order on that official note. Therefore, appellant's claim of long standing possession is thus, at best, an assertion of de facto occupation which may have been permissive or tolerated by the authorities and cannot - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 mature into a legally protected interest in the face of a lawful transfer of title. 7. It is well established principle of law that, for the grant of order of temporary injunction, the applicant must demonstrate that, the existence of prima facie case which entails not merely a plausible claim but, a genuine triable issue supported by some legal footing. Additionally, the applicant must show that, the balance of convenience tilts in her favour and that irreparable injury would result if the relief is denied. These parameters must not be evaluated in isolation but, in a composite manner bearing in mind the underlying factual matrix and the nature of competing rights. 8. In the present case, the documents produced by the respondents clearly establish that, respondent no.6 is the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property pursuant to a sale deed executed by BDA which is supported by a possession certificate. These documents - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 are conclusive of title and possession and carry a presumption of legality under the Registration Act and the Indian Evidence Act i.e. (now Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). 9. On the other hand, the appellant's document do not reflect any allotment, lease, licence or grant in her favour. The representations made by her and the internal noting in BDA files, if any only go to show that, her request was pending or considered but, no decision was taken in her favour. 10. In so far as claim of irreparable injury is concerned, this Court finds that, no such injury can be presumed in the absence of a legal right. If the appellant continues occupation is without any legal sanction, then permitting her to remain in property would amount to granting interim relief which would have effect of protecting an unauthorized occupation over a rightful claim of registered owner. Such interim protection if granted - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 would irreversibly affect the rights of respondent no.6 and would disturb the equitable balance contemplated under Order 39 of CPC. 11. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to satisfy the requirement for grant of temporary injunction. The finding of the trial Court is well reasoned and based on a careful appreciation of the documents and pleadings. I do not find any perversity, arbitrariness or misdirection of law in the impugned order warranting interference in this appeal. 12. In conclusion, the appellant has failed to make out a case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC. The appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28947 MFA No. 6225 of 2024 ORDER (i) The Misc. First Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The order dated 2.9.2024 passed in OS No.5669/2024 by 40th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-41) is hereby affirmed. Under the circumstances, no orders as to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23