- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44368 MFA No. 5935 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.5935 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE. M. THIMMARAYAPPA, TRIAL COURT AGE 57 YEARS, R/AT HUCHEGOWDANAPALYA VILLAGE, T. BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. 2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA @ MANGALA, D/O LATE. M. THIMMARAYAPPA, W/O SRI. RAMEGOWDA, AGE 57 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.1, 2ND CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO. 13, MALLASANDRA, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 057. 3. SMT. CHANNAMMA, D/O LATE. M. THIMMARAYAPPA, W/O SRI. B.G. THIMMAIAH, AGE 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 407, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD PHASE, MANJUNATHA NAGARA, BENGALURU- 560 010. 4. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, D/O LATE. M. THIMMARAYAPPA, Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44368 MFA No. 5935 of 2025 W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGE 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. MASKAL VILLAGE, GULURU HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT – 572 101. 5. SMT. CHIKKAMMA, W/O LATE. M. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGE 76 YEARS, R/AT HUCHEGOWDANAPALYA VILLAGE, T. BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123. 6. SRI. ERAMARAIAH KUMAR, S/O LATE. M. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT HUCHEGWDANAPALYA VILLAGE, T. BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123. 7. SRI. THIMMEGOWDA, S/O LATE. M. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGE, MAJOR, R/AT HUCHEGOWDANAPALYA VILLAGE, T. BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M SIDDARAJU S/O LATE. MUDDAMARAIAH, R/AT HUCHEGWDANAPALYA VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44368 MFA No. 5935 of 2025 T. BEGUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONAKHANDE BASAGOWDA PANDIT, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.30.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 AND XVI IN O.S.NO.243/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING IA NO.2 AND XVI FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. 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 appellants/defendants questioning the order dated 30.06.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.II & XVI filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.243/2017 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., at Nelamangala, thereby, the order of temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. 2. The suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement dated 02.08.2016. The subject matter in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44368 MFA No. 5935 of 2025 agreement and the schedule shown in the plaint is described as follows: SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY “All that piece and parcel of land in Sy No.252/1 measuring 0-20 guntas situated at T.Beguru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, bounded East by: remaining land in the above land West by: remaining land in the above land in the above survey number belonging to M.Thimmarayappa sold, in favour Ramanna M measuring 0.15 guntas North by: remaining land belonging to Thimmarayappa, South by : road and land of M. Thimmarayappa”. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that when the order of temporary injunction is only in regard to 0.20 guntas of land, but the Revenue Authorities have made remark/entry in the RTC extract produced from the year 2017-18 to 2023-24 that there is an interim order of injunction to the whole 5 acres 20 guntas. Therefore, he prays for clarification that the said order of temporary injunction shall be effected in the records only to the extent of 0.20 guntas and undertakes - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44368 MFA No. 5935 of 2025 that he will not alienate 0.20 guntas of land till the disposal of the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposed the submission and submitted that in the revenue entry made in the RTC extract, the entry is in respect to OS.No.107/2017, but the instant suit is O.S.No.243/2017 and the entry made may be in respect of some other order. They submitted that there need not be any clarification. 5. There is no dispute that the land in Sy.No.252/2011 is 5 acres 20 guntas of land. Admittedly, the defendants are the owners of land to the extent of 5 acres 9 guntas. Admittedly, the subject matter in the suit is to the extent of 0.20 guntas only as per the agreement also. The trial Court has passed the order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making alienation of the suit schedule property which is only 0.20 guntas of land and not more than that. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44368 MFA No. 5935 of 2025 6. But in the RTC extract the Revenue Authorities have entered the entry regarding the order of temporary injunction to the whole extent of 5 acres 20 guntas which can be seen in coloumn No.11 of the RTC extract. In the RTC extract at coloumn No.11 the case number is shown as O.S.No.107/2017 which is numbered as vacation O.S.No.107/2017. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants made available the certified copy of the order sheet maintained in the said suit. Subsequently, this vacation original suit is numbered as O.S.No.243/2017. Therefore, vacation O.S.No.107/2017 and new number O.S.No.243/2017 are one and the same case. The Revenue Authorities before assigning the new number has referred the vacation OS.No.107/2017. Therefore, revenue entry gives impression that there would be injunction to the entire extent of 5 acres 20 guntas. Therefore, though, the defendants are suffering an order of temporary injunction only to the extent of 0.20 guntas as ordered by the trial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44368 MFA No. 5935 of 2025 Court, but the Revenue Authorities have enlarged the order of temporary injunction as if to the whole extent of land i.e., to 5 acres 20 guntas. Hence, there is clarification needed. 8. It is made clear that the trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction only to the extent of 0.20 guntas of land. Therefore, the Revenue Authorities shall show by mentioning the order of the Court to the extent of 0.20 guntas of land. By making this clarification, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37