- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44012 MFA No. 1245 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1245 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KUMAR.R S/O LATE RAGHU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEW POTTERY TOWN, WILLIAMS TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 084. 2. SRI. N.YELLAPPA, S/O LATE K NANJAPPA, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23, 3RD CROSS, VST ROAD, LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 084. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.S. NARESH SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KARUKAIHARA KRISHNAN PANIKAR ARVINDAKSHAN, S/O MR. KARUKAIHARA KRISHNA PANIKAR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARUKATHARA HARISUMAN, PANDALAM, KIURAMPALA, PANDALAM POST, KERALA 689 501, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI ANIL KUMAR. Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44012 MFA No. 1245 of 2025 2. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, SHIVAJINAGAR, (BANASWADI), NO.740/2, 1ST FLOOR, CLASSIC MOTORS BUILDING, 9TH B MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 013. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.B.N.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.04.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.278/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908. 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 defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.278/2024 challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.278/2024 on the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44012 MFA No. 1245 of 2025 file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru1, thereby the application filed for seeking to grant an order temporary injunction was allowed. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 4. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare that he is owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction on the facts pleading that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule site through a registered sale deed dated 31.01.1995. It is not disputed that originally the owners were Doddavenkatappa and Chikkavenkatappa of the lands bearing Sy.No.17 and new Sy.No.17/2 situated at Byrathi Village, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru. The plaintiff is claiming to be the purchaser of the suit schedule site through registered sale 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44012 MFA No. 1245 of 2025 deed dated 31.01.1995 from Bandiamma. Whereas defendant No.1’s sale deed is dated 31.03.2023; therefore, the sale deed of the plaintiff has precedence over the period of defendant No.1. Thus, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that they are purchasers through the children of Vallappa. Both Vallappa and Bandiamma are the husband and wife. Bandiamma did not have suit rights over the suit schedule land. The defendants have claiming their title through children of Vallappa and Bandiamma and after purchasing the lands, the defendants have got converted the lands and obtained an order of conversion from the Deputy Commissioner (for short ‘the DC’) on 31.03.2023 and sites were formed. Accordingly, defendant No.1 had purchased the suit schedule site. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44012 MFA No. 1245 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that though the defendants had obtained an order of conversion from the DC, but that is challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the KAT’) and is pending and moreover, the layout plan was not got approved by the competent authority. Hence, there is no question of purchase of suit schedule site by the defendants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the plaintiff on the guise of obtaining the order of temporary injunction is interfering with the possession of the defendants by bringing a JCB machine and demolished the compound wall and if this activity is continued, then the compound wall and house property of the defendants will be demolished; thus, prayed for an order of status quo by modifying the order of temporary injunction as granted by the Trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44012 MFA No. 1245 of 2025 8. Upon considering the materials produced before the Trial Court and before this Court there are rival claim over the title between the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff is claiming title through registered sale deed dated 31.01.1995 executed by Bandiamma. Whereas, the defendants are claiming the title as they having purchased the suit schedule site the through Yallappa, who has purchased the same through the children of Vallappa and Bandiamma. Therefore, there are rival claims of title over the suit schedule property. Moreover in the sale deed dated 31.01.1995 in the schedule, the schedule number of Sy.No.17 is not mentioned. Hence, the identity of the suit schedule site formed in the layout is to be examined in the full fledged trial. 9. It is submitted that though an order of conversion is obtained, but approval of layout plan was not obtained and the said order of conversion is challenged before the KAT. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has produced some photographs - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44012 MFA No. 1245 of 2025 showing that the plaintiff has brought a JCB machine to clear the sites by demolishing the compound walls of the defendants, which is denied by the counsel for the appellants/defendants. Therefore, when these are serious questions are to be considered in the trial before the trial Court, then an order of temporary injunction shall not be construed as claiming possession afresh over the suit schedule site. 10. When regarding the title and possession over the suit schedule site are in dispute; therefore, the Court is of the opinion to direct both the plaintiff and defendants to maintain status-quo in regarding possession as on today would be sufficient to protect the rights of both the parties at this stage. Hence, the order of temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court is modified directing both the plaintiff and defendants to maintain status-quo regarding the physical possession as on today without changing the nature of suit schedule site. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44012 MFA No. 1245 of 2025 11. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. 12. The Trial Court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the suit not later than one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. Both the parties shall co-operate to expedite the trial without seeking unnecessary adjournment and if any party seeks adjournment unnecessarily without giving genuine reason, the Trial Court is given liberty to impose heavy cost on the party, who seeks unnecessary adjournment. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33