- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33466 MFA No. 5360 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5360 OF 2023 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. M. MANUJAN S/O LATE. MANCHEGOWDA @ MUTHAMANCHEGOWDA, AGED 41 YEARS, R/AT MARIGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, KOTEKOPPA CIRCLE, UYAMBALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIST – 562 117 …APPELLANT (BY MISS. NITHYA.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAKASH M.H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHANNAVEERAMMA W/O BASAVEGOWDA, AGED 78 YEARS, 2. SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O BASAVEGOWDA, AGED 60 YEARS, R-1 AND R-2 ARE R/AT MARIGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, KOTEKOPPA CIRCLE, UYAMBALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIST – 562 117. 3. SRI. LINGEGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA AGED 74 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33466 MFA No. 5360 of 2023 4. SRI. PUTTEGOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKAPUTTEGOWDA AGED 64 YEARS, 5. SRI. BASAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAPUTTEGOWDA AGED 61 YEARS, R3 TO R5 ARE R/AT: BOLOMALLAPPANADODDI VILLAGE, I.GOLLAHALLI POST, UYAMBALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 AND R3- AWAITING SERVICE OF NOTICE TO LR’S OF R1 AND R3; V/O DATED 02.12.2024, NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN OS.NO.440/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 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 appellant/plaintiff questioning the order dated 11.08.2022 passed on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33466 MFA No. 5360 of 2023 I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.440/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, thereby, the application was dismissed. 2. The rank of the parties is referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare the registered sale deed dated 22.03.1969 is not binding on the plaintiff and also prays for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff has filed the application i.e., I.A.No.3 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC for temporary injunction, which was dismissed, on the reason that the sale deed challenged is dated 22.03.1969, but the suit is filed in the year 2019. Therefore, one of the aspects to be considered is regarding limitation to file the suit. Another reason assigned by the trial Court is that when the plaintiff is claiming the title and defendant No.2 is disputing the title of the plaintiff, and there is a cloud over the title, then the plaintiff ought - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33466 MFA No. 5360 of 2023 to have filed the suit for declaration, but has not filed the same. Therefore, with these observations, the trial Court has opined that the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case and balance of convenience. Thus, the trial Court has dismissed the application for temporary injunction. 4. Upon considering the prayer in the plaint, the only prayer made is that the sale deed dated 22.03.1969 is not binding on the plaintiff when the suit is filed in the year 2019. Therefore, the aspect of limitation is also to be considered in the suit. Furthermore, when the plaintiff is claiming ownership through the oral partition, according to him, it has taken place in the year 1969 and if defendant No.2 is trespassing over the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, which was got through the partition in the year 1969, then the observation of the trial Court that the plaintiff ought to have made prayer for seeking declaration of title, but not made the same is found to be the correct observation in coming to the opinion that the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33466 MFA No. 5360 of 2023 5. Therefore, for the reasons as above stated, the plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case and balance of convenience and if an order of temporary injunction is granted, then that would cause more injury and loss to defendant No.2 rather to the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in dismissing the application filed for temporary injunction. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. 6. Whatever observations made above shall not be construed as merits involved in the case. Therefore, the trial Court shall independent of the above observations consider and determine the suit in accordance with law independently. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45