- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31566 MFA No. 3554 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3554 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI PRABHU JAYAPPA, S/O. JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT 316/317, 1ST CROSS, SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE ROAD, KOTHANUR DINNE, J.P. NAGAR 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DEEPAK B. R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI R. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O. SRI. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, 3RD FLOOR, LAKSHMI NAGAR, 1ST MAIN, J.P. NAGAR 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE FOR C/R ON CP8234/2025) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.1041/2025 OF THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-32), BENGALURU CITY ON I.A.NO. II AND IV AND ALLOWING THE I.A.NO. II FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, REJECTING THE I.A.NO IV FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31566 MFA No. 3554 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 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. The defendant in O.S.No.1041/2025 has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 11.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.II filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction and I.A.No.IV filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to vacate ex-parte ad-interim temporary injunction in O.S.No.1041/2025 on the file of XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bengaluru City1, thereby, the application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is allowed and the application filed by defendant 1 hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31566 MFA No. 3554 of 2025 for vacating the ex-parte ad-interim temporary injunction is rejected. 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 permanent injunction against the defendant claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a gift deed executed by his father, namely M. Ramanna. It is stated that one Muniyappa is the original propositus and the plaintiff has produced the genealogy showing Munishambaiah and Kempanna as his two sons; Munishambaiah had gifted the suit schedule property in favour of his son, namely M. Ramanna and M. Ramanna had gifted the said property in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, by asserting his right of ownership through these transactions, he has started construction on the suit property, but it is interrupted by the defendant; therefore, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31566 MFA No. 3554 of 2025 the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction and the Trial Court has allowed the application filed for temporary injunction and granted an order of temporary injunction. 5. It is the submission made by the appellant/defendant that the defendant’s father, namely Jayappa, who is also the son of Muniyappa; therefore, he is also having right over the suit schedule properties and if the nature of properties is changed, then it would cause harm to the defendant. It is submitted that in the genealogy shown by the plaintiff, the name of Jayappa and other two sisters have not been shown as children of Muniyappa and this fact is suppressed by the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that Muniyappa has only two sons, namely Munisombaiah and Kempanna and that is correctly shown in the genealogy. 7. Here, the plaintiff is claiming right through the gift deed stated to have been executed by his father, M. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31566 MFA No. 3554 of 2025 Ramanna. M. Ramanna acquired property by virtue of gift deed through his father, Munishambaiah. If Muniyappa has executed gift deed, then the thing would have different and Jayappa would have also acquire a right in the suit schedule property. However, in the written statement, the defendant has not shown the genealogy; if the defendant is disputing the genealogy shown by the plaintiff, then it is incumbent upon by the defendant to show the counter genealogy, but it is not stated in the written statement. Therefore, the plaintiff has shown his right for having acquired the property through a gift deed through his grandfather but not great-grandfather. The defendant still has to establish that Jayappa is the son of Muniyappa. Therefore, the plaintiff has shown prima facie case and balance of convenience and when the plaintiff is making construction and if this is injuncted, then the plaintiff would be put into injury and loss. Hence, the Trial Court rightly granted an order of temporary injunction, which - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31566 MFA No. 3554 of 2025 needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 9. Further, it is for the defendant to establish the fact that Jayappa is the son of Muniyappa. 10. Whatever the observations are made above are only for the purpose of considering the appeal and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by whatever observations are made above while disposing of the case on merits and shall dispose of the case on merits after appreciating the evidence on record. 11. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit as early as possible. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52