- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 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. 6841 OF 2015 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. S. PRABHAKAR RAO S/O VENKATESHWARA RAO AGED 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1-7-139/12 S.R.K.NAGAR, MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD-500 020 ANDHRA PRADESH …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. N. MADAN GOPAL S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.46/1 HONGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 036 2 . SRI. NAGARAJ S/O SRI. KRISHNAM RAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.SFS 208 HOUSE, NO.117E, MOTHER DAIRY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE-560 064 Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 3 . SRI. S. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.178/73 13TH CROSS, TEACHER'S COLONY VENKATAPURA BANGALORE-560 034 4 . SRI. K. RAJU S/O LATE KARIYAPPA GOUNDER RESIDING AT NO.9 BRINDAVAN NAGAR THAVAREKERE BANGALORE-560 081 5 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS RESIDING AT GARVEBHAVI PALYA BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 036 6 . SRI. A. PILLAIAH S/O LATE GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT GARVEBHAVI PALYA BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 036 7 . SRI. S. KRISHNAPPA REDDY S/O LATE SHAMANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT GARVEBHAVI PALYA BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AKASH V.T, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DTD.11.09.2015 NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SEC.104 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2015 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S NO.5440/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-45), ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC. 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 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is instituted under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC") assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the learned XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45) in I.A.No. 1 in O.S.No.5440/2013. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff, respondent no. 1 herein and granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 and other defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's alleged possession over the suit schedule property, or from demolishing or alienating the said property or creating any encumbrance thereon. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The appellant contends that, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in granting the order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, despite the fact that, the suit itself is not maintainable in law and is based on an untenable claim of adverse possession, which cannot form the basis of declaration of ownership. It is further urged that, the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff's pleadings, taken at their face value and wrongly observed that, plaintiff's case do not disclose a prima facie case, nor do they establish actual possession sufficient to warrant the protection of an injunction. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein, that, he has been in continuous, open and hostile - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 possession of the suit schedule property since the year 1987, having purchased the same from one Gupalli, who, in turn, had acquired the possession through an Agreement of Sale and Power of Attorney said to have been executed in the year 1981 by the original owners i.e., defendants Nos. 5 to 7. The plaintiff further asserts that, his possession since 1987 has matured into ownership by way of adverse possession and he seeks a declaration of title on that basis. The plaintiff also filed an application under Form No.7-A before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights over the land, which is stated to be pending. Based on these assertions, the plaintiff filed the original suit seeking a declaration of ownership based on adverse possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. 4. The appellant/defendant No. 1 in the suit filed objections, resisting the claim and contended that, the suit for declaration based on adverse possession is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 maintainable in law. The appellant asserts that, adverse possession is only a defence and not a cause of action to seek declarative relief, and relies on various judgments of the Apex Court. The appellant further contends that, the plaintiff’s documents are insufficient and fabricated. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff, such as tax paid receipts, electricity bills and voter identity cards, do not constitute conclusive evidence of lawful possession. Moreover, the description of the property in these documents does not tally with the suit schedule property. 5. The appellant aver that, he acquired valid and lawful title to the suit property under registered Sale Deeds executed during the years 2005 and 2006 by the very same defendant Nos. 5 to7, from whom the plaintiff claims his vendor Gupalli had derived possession. Therefore, it is contended that, the appellant's title is supported by registered conveyances and their possession is also with the appellant, which stands in stark contrast to the unregistered and doubtful documentation produced by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 the plaintiff. It is also pointed out that, the plaintiff, if he indeed had a valid Agreement of Sale from 1987, ought to have sought relief of specific performance within the period of limitation, but instead has chosen to plead adverse possession, which is mutually destructive and further renders the suit untenable. 6. The learned trial Court, however, upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents produced, has found that, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court relied on the documents filed by the plaintiff, including tax records, electricity bills and voter ID card, to infer that, the plaintiff has been in possession of the property over a long period. The trial Court further opined that, the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff and that he would suffer irreparable harm and injury, if he were to be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. Accordingly, the learned trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession or altering the nature of the property. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the pivotal issue for consideration is: "Whether the trial Court was justified in granting a temporary injunction in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, especially when the plaintiff’s claim for ownership is based on adverse possession?" 8. As a matter of settled law, a declaration suit of ownership based solely on adverse possession now can be filed as per the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in between Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729. Even plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction which is an independent relief given by the plaintiff in the suit and the claim of the plaintiff can be adjudicated upon based on possession alone, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 irrespective of title. At this interlocutory stage, the Court is not required to conclusively determine the title or possession but is merely required to examine whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, warranting protection of possession, and whether the balance of convenience lies in his favour. 9. Upon scrutiny of the documents produced by the plaintiff, such as tax paid receipts, electricity bills, and voter ID card issued over a period of time, it does appear that, the plaintiff's name is reflected with reference to the suit property. These documents, while not being conclusive proof of title, do offer prima facie support for the claim of possession. It is also not disputed that, the appellant's Sale Deeds are of a relatively recent origin i.e., from 2005 and 2006, whereas the plaintiff claims possession since 1987. Though such claims must be proved during the course of trial, the trial Court was not wholly unjustified in concluding that, the plaintiff appears to be in possession and that his dispossession at this stage - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 would cause irreparable harm, especially when the rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated. 10. Having said that, this Court is also mindful of the legal infirmity in the suit's primary claim, a declaration which has to be proved in accordance with law. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that, he has really perfected his title over the property by way of adverse possession. In the circumstances, whether trial Court's intention to preserve the status quo and prevent unilateral dispossession is well founded, the form and tenure of the injunction order require modifications to better reflect the legal possession and ensure fairness to both the sides. 11. The trial Court has exercised its discretion in granting the injunction. Rather than granting a blanket injunction against the defendants, a more balanced approach would be made to direct both the parties to maintain the existing status of the property without altering its nature or possession and to restrain either - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 party from taking any steps that would affect the rights of the other until final adjudication. Thereby this Court is of the concerned view that, the impugned order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court calls for modification. 12. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-45) in I.A.No. 1 in O.S.No.5440/2013 is modified. (iii) Instead of restraining the defendants alone, it is hereby directed that, both the plaintiff and the defendants shall maintain status quo with respect to the possession, nature and character of the suit property held by the plaintiff. Neither party shall - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28945 MFA No. 6841 of 2015 cause any demolition, alienation, construction or encumbrance in relation to the suit property until disposal of the suit. This modified order shall remain in force till the disposal of the suit. (iv) In view of the pendency of the suit from 2013 onwards, the trial Court is requested to dispose of this case with all its promptitude expeditiously in accordance with law. (v) No orders as to cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21