- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26677 MFA No. 1427 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1427 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. MR. B.H. VIVEKANANDA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O. NO. 124 BASAWANAPURA VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DANAPPA PRADHANAPPA PANIBHATE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. R. CHANDRA S/O LATE D. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NEAR VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD KRISHNARAJAPURA BENGALURU-560 036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAYANATARA B.G, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26677 MFA No. 1427 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2024 PASSED ON IN O.S.NO.6132/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-16), ALLOWING THE IA FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 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) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"), assailing the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned 17th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.6132/2023, whereby the learned trial judge allowed the interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and directed both the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26677 MFA No. 1427 of 2024 2. The factual matrix, in brief is that, the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the said suit, instituted a suit in O.S.No.6132/23 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants. In the said suit the respondent contends that, he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule 'B' property, which is part of a larger extent of land allegedly purchased by him from one Rukmini and Ramamurthy, who were the legal representatives of the original grantee by name R.K. Muttukrishna. It is the specific case of the respondent that, the said sale transaction was effected by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 25.11.2013. Alleging interference by the appellants, the respondent approached the trial Court and sought an order of temporary injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering with his possession. 3. The appellants, who are arrayed as defendants before the trial Court, entered their appearance and filed their detailed objections resisting grant of any interim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26677 MFA No. 1427 of 2024 relief. The appellants claim ownership and possession of the properties bearing Survey Nos. 26/1, 26/2 and 26/3, situated in the same locality, including the suit scheduled lands. It is their case that, they derive title through a valid grant by the Competent Authority, reflected in the grant certificate bearing MR No. 16/78-79, and that their rights have been duly adjudicated and affirmed by this Court in RFA No. 649/2004 and 650/2004, whereby Smt. Narayanamma, under whom the appellants claim, was declared as the absolute owner. 4. The appellants further contended that the Sale Deed executed by Rukmini and Ramamurthy in favour of the respondent is not legally tenable. As the said predecessors themselves had no right, title or interest in the subject property. They pointed out that the Land Tribunal, in LRF No. 4079/1975-76, had already re-granted the lands in favour of Meenakshamma, thus rendering any claim of Rukmini and Ramamurthy to the property void ab initio. Additionally, the appellants placed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26677 MFA No. 1427 of 2024 reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14452/2011, whereby the mutation entry effected in favour of Rukmini and Ramamurthy (vide MR No. 3/2004-05) was quashed, further affirming that the said individuals had no lawful title to pass on to the respondent. 5. On the other hand, the respondent maintained that his title flows from a registered document and that the very fact that the appellants had earlier based litigation on O.S.No.25452/2008 instituted by Rukmini and Ramamurthy, which was dismissed, estops them from now raising any contentions against respondent's title. The respondent's stand was, that his possession was lawful and that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the status quo until the main suit was adjudicated. 6. Upon considering the rival pleadings and perusing the documents produced by both the parties, the learned trial Judge was of the view that, the matter - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26677 MFA No. 1427 of 2024 involved complex questions of title which would not be conclusively determined at the interim stage. The trial Court observed that the materials produced prima facie showed that both the parties were asserting competing claims of ownership and possession, and in order to avoid any further complications or multiplicity of proceedings, it was appropriate to preserve the current state of affairs until final adjudication. Consequently, the learned Judge allowed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and directed both the parties to maintain status quo. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under appellate jurisdiction for the following reasons. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26677 MFA No. 1427 of 2024 8. It is the well-settled principle of law that while considering applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, the Court must be satisfied that the applicant has established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lies in his favour, and that he would suffer irreparable injury if the interim relief is not granted. In the present case, the trial Court has rightly assessed these factors. The respondent, having produced a registered Sale Deed, made out a prima facie claim to ownership and possession. Though the appellants have relied upon earlier judgments and Grant Certificates, the veracity and applicability of such documents to the present suit schedule properties will necessarily require detailed examination during trial. 9. Furthermore, the appellants have not shown any urgency or imminent threat of irreparable injury that would arise solely due to the continuance of the status quo order. It is also relevant to note that the order does not restrain the appellants from asserting or defending their - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26677 MFA No. 1427 of 2024 rights in the trial; It merely ensures that the subject property is not altered pending adjudication. 10. Moreover, the appellant's attempt to impugn the respondent's title based on earlier Land Tribunal orders and orders passed by this Court is a matter that goes to the root of title and requires comprehensive evidence and adjudication. At this interlocutory stage, the trial Court has exercised its discretion cautiously and in conformity with the established legal principles governing the grant of interim relief. 11. This Court also finds that the appellants rely on the High Court's judgment in RFA Nos. 649/2004 and 650/2004, though significant, cannot ipso facto negate the respondent's claim arising out of an independent transaction. The question of whether the respondent's vendor had any transferable interest is an issue that lies at the heart of this suit and must be adjudicated after the evidence is adduced by both the parties. Interim orders - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26677 MFA No. 1427 of 2024 are not meant to prejudge such contentious issues of fact and law. 12. For the following reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court. The impugned order merely seeks to preserve the subject matter of the suit and does not cause any irreversible prejudice to the appellants. On the contrary, setting aside such an order may open the doors to further complications and irreversible changes to the subject property. 13. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the 17th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.6132/2023 is upheld in its entirety. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26677 MFA No. 1427 of 2024 (iii) Trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Both the parties shall co-operative for early disposal. (iv) Costs made easy. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30