- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9060 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: VARUN. K S/O KANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 40/4, 11TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, NEAR BANDI REDDY CIRCLE, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 021 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH R.V.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. V GOPALAPPA, S/O. LATE DYAVANAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 092 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ADINARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 11.11.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 1 AND 3 IN O.S. NO. 5420/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-36), DISMISSING THE I.A.NO. 1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX AND Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE I.A.NO. 3 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 OF CPC IN TIME. 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 plaintiff questioning the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Court of XXXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36) in O.S.No.5420/2025 on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff seeking for temporary injunction and I.A.No.3 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC by the defendant to vacate the expert order of temporary injunction, thereby, application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is dismissed by allowing I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant for vacating the exparte order of temporary injunction dated 30.07.2025. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction by pleading that he is the owner and in possession of suit schedule properties acquired from their - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 vendors G.Srinivasa Gowda and Subbamma by way of registered sale deed dated 15.05.2024. The vendors of plaintiff were allottees of the site through NTI (National Technological Institution) Housing Co-Operative Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘NTI Society’ for short). It is the case of the plaintiff that the Government has acquired the land bearing Sy.No.6/1A by way of Preliminary Notification and Final Notification in the year 1985 and 1986 respectively and the defendant is the owner of the said land. Said acquisition was for the purpose of formation of layout and sites. Thereafter, the NTI Society has formed layout and sites and had sold to G.Srinivasa Gowda and Subbamma on 27.03.2013 and in turn, they have sold the property to the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff is claim that he is the owner and in possession and when he has started construction at that time defendant has interfered with his possession. Therefore, filed the suit for permanent injunction. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 3. Upon application filed by the plaintiff initially the trial court has granted an exparte order of temporary injunction, but later on it was rejected on 11.11.2025. Therefore, the plaintiff is in appeal before this Court. 4. It is the case of the respondent/defendant that the defendant is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.6/1A to the extent 1 acre, which is not acquired. Further submitted that when the land of the defendant was not acquired, he has applied for conversion of the land and the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, has passed an order of conversion in the year 1990 and thereafter the layout was approved and thus the defendant is the owner of the said land. Thus, the NTI Society had no title to claim ownership over the land bearing Sy.No.6/1A. Further submitted that the NTI Society has not obtained approval from the competent authorities of the layout and entire layout is unauthorized and illegal, which does not convey title to NTI Society so as to sell to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 the purchasers. Further submitted that there were some irregularities in the NTI Society and as such the authorities of the House Building Co-Operative Societies had correspondence with the Government and thus issued letter on 21.06.2022 and said order is not revoked and therefore, the defendant is the owner of the land. Therefore, on these pleadings prays to dismiss the appeal and justified the order passed by the learned trial court for vacating the exparte order of temporary injunction. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of materials placed on record by both the parties, the following points would arise for my consideration: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant order of temporary injunction? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted then plaintiff would be put into any irreparable loss or injury? (iv) Whether, the impugned order passed by the trial court requires any interference by this Court? 6. The plaintiff is contending that the land bearing Sy.No.6/1A to the extent of 1.00 acre was acquired by the Government on behalf of the NTI Society for formation of layout and sites in the year 1985-86. The defendant who was the owner of the said land has challenged the entire proceedings before this Court in the writ petitions and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 said writ petitions were dismissed and upheld in the writ appeals also. Therefore, the defendant is no longer owner of the land bearing Sy.No.6/1A. Then the NTI Society has formed layout after obtaining approval from the competent authorities and sold the sites to one G.Srinivasa Gowda and Subbamma through registered sale deed dated 27.03.2013. Thereafter the plaintiff has purchased the said sites from various persons on 15.05.2024 through registered sale deeds. Therefore, on this basis the plaintiff is claiming the ownership and in possession over the suit schedule property. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that after purchasing the said site the appellant/plaintiff had started construction of the house on the said site, but the defendant has interfered with. Therefore, filed the instant suit by contending that plaintiff is in possession over the suit property. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 8. Both the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant have filed voluminous documents and upon perusal of the same, it is not disputed by the defendants that the land bearing Sy.No.6/1A to the extent of 1 acre was acquired by the Government in favour of NTI Society for formation of layout and sites. Also the defendant has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.2231/2021 (GM-RES) challenging the acquisition proceedings and the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 05.08.2024 and in the said order this Court has observed that the defendant was unsuccessful though had initiated several legal proceedings. Therefore, prima facie it is shown that the defendant is unsuccessful in getting quashing the acquisition proceedings. Further the defendant has also filed W.P.No.19765/2013 (LA-HS) and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 08.11.2021 has dismissed the said writ petition, which is filed by the defendant seeking declaration that the schedule land is not acquired. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings initiated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 by the Government came to be upheld. Therefore, this prima facie shows that the defendant is no longer owner of the land in Sy.No.6/1A to the extent of 1 acre. 9. The defendant has filed the documents stating that initially the NTI Society has requested only for 66 acres 05 guntas, but the Government has acquired the land to the extent of 33 acres and therefore, NTI Society was not affordable to pay compensation thus submitted that the entire acquisition proceedings is illegal. Whatever may be the quantum of extent of land acquired, but the fact remains that land bearing Sy.No.6/1A was acquired and the said acquisition proceedings are upheld. 10. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted some records showing that land bearing Sy.No.6/1A to the extent of 1 acre was got converted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, by order dated 03.08.1982 and later on, the layout was approved and the layout plan was produced. But this conversion - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 order and layout plan of the defendant is subsequent to the acquisition proceedings of acquiring the land bearing Sy.No.6/1A. Therefore, in one of the judgments this Court in RFA No.1803/2022 has observed that whatever the conversion of land in favour of the defendant and layout approved is subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and the defendant is no longer owner of the land by the said acquisition. When the land bearing Sy.No.6/1A was acquired in the year 1985-86 and in the year 1992 the defendant was no more remained as owner of the land and how he has sought for conversion of the land, is the question remained for consideration. Further the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, has given endorsement that though the land bearing Sy.No.6/1A was acquired but the possession was not taken as per Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. But, as discussed above, the Government has acquired the land in the year 1985-86 and the defendant was no longer remained as owner of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 the land bearing Sy.No.6/1A and the NTI Society has formed layout and sold sites to various persons including the vendors of the plaintiff. This prima facie shows that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule sites and is in possession over the suit schedule properties. Here the defendant is claiming ownership of the land and therefore the defendant is at liberty to seek declaration in this regard from the competent Court, but the fact remains that when considering the materials placed before this Court the land bearing Sy.No.6/1A was acquired and now NTI Society has formed layout and sold sites to the various persons and the plaintiff’s vendors are allotted sites by NTI Society. This constitutes a prima facie case so far as showing that plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience, who is in possession over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the trial court is not correct in vacating the exparte order of temporary injunction. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 11. Whatever may be the irregularities of the Society, the Government has to look into the aspects but the Government has acquired the land in favour of NTI Society and the NTI Society has formed layout and allotted the sites to its members and plaintiff is one of the purchasers of the sites from the allottees of the Society. Therefore when the plaintiff prays for injunction, these constitute prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. As such, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted then the plaintiff would be put into irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative. 12. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53353 MFA No. 9060 of 2025 (ii) The impugned order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Court of XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36), is set aside and order of temporary injunction as prayed is granted in favour of plaintiff. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15