- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35964 MFA No. 666 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.666 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. K. GOPAL S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED BOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO. 395, 4TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGARA, RAMAMURTHYNAGARA, BENGALURU-560 016. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MEGHANA ARAVIND W/O G. PAWAN KUMAR, D/O MR. ARAVINDA R.H., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 141, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD 'D' CROSS, EAST OF NGEF, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. DORAI BABU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O XLIII RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3/2024 IN OS.NO.3066/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35964 MFA No. 666 of 2025 BENGALURU CCH.NO.39, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.3/2024 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 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 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 defendant in O.S.No.3066/2024 challenging the order dated 23.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.3/2024 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.3066/2024 on the file of XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru1 (CCH-39), thereby, the application filed for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction is allowed. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35964 MFA No. 666 of 2025 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff has also filed an application in I.A.No.3/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction and the Trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents or anybody claiming under him from interfering with the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed dated 07.06.2003 from one Smt. Usha Venkatesha. The said Smt. Usha Venkatesha was the vendor and purchased the said suit schedule property from her vendor on 06.05.2002; therefore, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35964 MFA No. 666 of 2025 plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. 6. The defendant appeared through his Advocate and filed written statement. It is the case of the defendant that he purchased the suit schedule property from his vendor, namely, M.C. Thyagaraju, through a registered sale deed dated 18.11.1998. The said M.C. Thyagaraju purchased the said suit schedule property from one Bommaraju N. through General Power of Attorney (GPA). 7. When this being the fact pleaded by both the parties in the respective pleadings, the Trial Court upon finding the prima facie case, held that the plaintiff is in possession and as per the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the plaintiff is at the verge of completion of the construction of the house. Therefore, the Trial Court has passed an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35964 MFA No. 666 of 2025 8. When this being the fact of rival claim of declaration between the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, it is yet to be decided in the suit before the Trial Court. It is submitted that now the respondent/plaintiff is at the verge of completion of construction of the house on the suit schedule site. Hence, prima facie it is proved that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 9. However, when the title of the plaintiff is yet to be decided and the question of deciding the title is still under consideration in the suit before the Trial Court. Therefore, whatever the construction is made or even if the construction is completed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall not claim equity in case result of the suit goes against the plaintiff. Hence, whatever construction is being made by the plaintiff is subject to result of the suit and the plaintiff cannot claim equity. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35964 MFA No. 666 of 2025 10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. 11. Whatever observations are made above shall not be construed on the merits involved in the case. Therefore, the Trial Court, without being influenced by the above said observations shall dispose of the suit on merits after considering the evidence on record produced by both sides. 12. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs', if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45