- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53354 MFA No. 3530 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3530 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. J. ASHWINI W/O GANESH GOVIND, D/O SRI JAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT SUBBAIAH REDDY ROAD, NO. 15/2, HALASURU, BENGALURU – 560 008. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.D.RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K. MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O MR KAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 785, 2ND CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISWANATHA N S, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.01.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2022 IN O.S.NO.26750/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-29), DISMISSING IA NO.1/2022 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53354 MFA No. 3530 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff questioning the order dated 01.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.1/2022 in O.S.No.26750/2022 by XXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-29), Mayohall, Bengaluru, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed. 2. It is the case made out by the plaintiff in the plaint that she has become the owner of the property by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 25.02.2018 executed by her father. The defendant has started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is dismissed on the reason that the plaintiff has not produced the General Power of Attorney - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53354 MFA No. 3530 of 2025 dated 16.11.1990, which is stated to have been executed by S.G.Narayana Reddy in favour of father of the plaintiff and also it is observed that there is rival claim of title over the suit property, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Hence, on these reasons the trial Court dismissed the application. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that after the death of S.G.Narayana Reddy, his wife Chinnamma and children have executed the Registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one M.A.Ashok Kumar and in turn, the said M.A.Ashok Kumar had sold the property in favour of Santhosh Kavoor in the year 1997 through the registered sale deed. Thereafter, the said Santhosh Kavoor had sold the property through the registered sale deed in favour of K.Kantharaj who is the brother of defendant, then the said K.Kantharaj has executed the gift deed and gifted to the defendant through the registered gift deed dated 12.09.2016. Thus, in this way, the defendant has become the owner, having title - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53354 MFA No. 3530 of 2025 and in possession of the suit schedule land. Therefore, it is rightly considered by the trial Court. Thus, justified the order passed by the trial Court. 4. Upon considering the rival submissions and material produced at this stage, the points that arise for consideration are as under: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial Court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out the case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial 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 plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury? (iv) The order of the trial Court requires interference or not? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53354 MFA No. 3530 of 2025 5. It is the case of the plaintiff simplicitor for temporary injunction. The learned counsel submitted that S.G.Narayana Reddy had executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of J.Jayakumar who is father of the plaintiff, but the said fact is not pleaded in the plaint. It is the case made out by the plaintiff that she has become the owner of the property by virtue of the gift deed executed by her father J.Jayakumar dated 25.02.2018. 6. On the other hand, it is the case made out by the defendant that after the death of S.G.Narayana Reddy, his wife and children have executed the Registered Power of Attorney in favour of M.A.Ashok Kumar. Thereafter, the said M.A.Ashok Kumar had sold the property in favour of Santhosh Kavoor through the sale deed on 10.07.1997. Thereafter, the said Santhosh Kavoor had sold the property in favour of K.Kantharaj on 15.07.2015 and thereafter, the said K.Kantharaj has gifted the property in favour of defendant through the registered gift deed dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53354 MFA No. 3530 of 2025 12.09.2016. Thus, in this way, the defendant acquired the property and he is in possession. 7. Comparing the case between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff is not found to be having prima facie case as discussed above. Also at this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the schedule shown in the documents produced by the defendant are not tallied with the schedule in the plaint. But upon perusal of the schedules described in the plaint and the documents in favour of the defendant are one and the same. 8. Therefore, prima facie it is shown that the schedule is the same property on which the plaintiff is claiming. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in finding that the plaintiff does not have prima facie case, therefore, there is no need to make interference in the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, answered point Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53354 MFA No. 3530 of 2025 in negative. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 9. However, liberty is given to the plaintiff to make amendment and also to file application for temporary injunction afresh and in such an event, the trial Court shall consider the said application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 10. Also liberty is reserved to the defendant to file objections and if the defendant files objection to the said application, the same shall be dealt with as per law. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61