- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4251 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. H. ANJANAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKA HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT MARUTHI NILAYA RENUKAMBA CONDIMENTS 2ND CROSS ROAD, PIPELINE LINE ROAD OPP. HOYSALA PARK ROAD SUNKADAKATTE, WARD NO-71 BANGALORE-560 091 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH S. SURYAVANSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANTHAPPA D.G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. SRI. RAMESH S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. SMT. MAYAMMA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 4. SRI. PUTTASHAMAIAH S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 5. SRI. MUNIRAJU @ RAJUNNA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 6. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 7. SMT. MUTTAHANUMAKKA W/O JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT GIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBALI KADABAGERE POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DTD.14.07.2025 NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.22.11.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN O.S.NO.99/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING THE IA.NO. 4 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal has been instituted under the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"), by the appellant/defendant No. 1, being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, in O.S.No.99/2023. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed I.A.No. IV filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, thereby granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff until the disposal of the suit. Present appellant seeks to assail the correctness and validity of the said interlocutory order, contending that, the same has been passed in ignorance of the facts and circumstances of the case, and that the trial Court has erred in concluding - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 that, the plaintiff has made out a case warranting interim protection. 2. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and upon meticulous perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the documents relied upon by the respective parties, and the contentions advanced in the memorandum of appeal, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court for the following reasons. 3. A careful examination of the factual and legal matrix surrounding the dispute reveals that, the trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously, applying well- established principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions, and the findings recorded therein do not disclose any perversity, arbitrariness or misdirection in law so as to warrant interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 4. It emerges from the records that, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has placed substantial documentary evidence on the record to prima facie establish his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, measuring 1 acre 3 guntas situated in Survey No. 48 of Giddenahalli Village. The foundation of the plaintiff's claim rests on the Palupatti dated 21.06.1986, which collectively indicates that the land in question was originally granted to the plaintiff's father, Sri Hanumanthaiah, under the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable Institutions) Inams Abolition Act, 1959, and was subsequently partitioned among the legal heirs, resulting in the plaintiff acquiring exclusive possession and enjoyment of the aforementioned extent. The RTC extracts produced for various years consistently reflect the name of the plaintiff in the cultivator's column, which strongly corroborates the claim of a long-standing and uninterrupted possession. Moreover, the plaintiff has furnished other ancillary evidence such as loan documents - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 obtained for agricultural purposes, electricity bills standing in his name, and photographs demonstrating cultivation and residential construction, all of which collectively support his case that he is in settled possession of the land and is carrying on agricultural activities therein. 5. In contrast, the appellant/defendant No. 1, who seeks to oppose the interim relief granted by the trial Court, has failed to place cogent and reliable documentary material to dispute the plaintiff's claim or to establish his own possessory or ownership rights over the disputed portion. Though the appellant relies upon the Mutation Register No. 2/1996-97 and asserts that his father, Chikkahanumaiah, was in possession of 3 acres 2 guntas in the same survey number, the old RTC entries referred to by the trial Court unequivocally indicate that Chikkahanumaiah had possession of only 2 acres of land. This discrepancy between the claim and the supporting records has cast serious doubts on the veracity of the appellant's assertions. Furthermore, the appellant's own - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 pleadings before the trial Court reveal a contradictory stance-on the one hand, the appellant denies the plaintiff's right over the suit schedule property, and on the other hand, he admits that the plaintiff is in possession, but claims that such possession was permitted by him on "humanitarian grounds". Such inconsistent and self- contradictory averments materially weaken the appellant's case and fortify the plaintiff's contention that his possession is not permissible but rooted in lawful entitlement. 6. The learned trial Court has rightly assessed that any interference with the plaintiff's peaceful possession at the instance of the appellant, particularly in the absence of any competing or superior legal right being established by the appellant, would result in irreparable injury and disturbance to the status quo that has prevailed for decades. The law recognizes that once a party is found to be in settled possession, such a possession deserves protection even against the rightful owners until this - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 possession is effected in accordance with law. The grant of temporary injunction in such a context serves to prevent the multiplicity of proceedings and maintain the existing state of affairs until the rival claims are adjudicated upon finally. The trial Court was justified in concluding that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiff, whose livelihood and shelter are intertwined with the subject property, and any disruption thereto would lead to consequences that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. 7. The role of the Appellate Court in matters arising under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC is circumscribed and limited to examining whether the discretion exercised by the trial Court suffers from any manifest illegality, misapprehension of facts, or is otherwise vitiated by perversity or caprice. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that the Appellate Court does not lightly interfere with the discretionary - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 orders of the Court below, unless a palpable miscarriage of justice is shown. 8. In the present case, the impugned order is found to be supported by reasons, rooted in the evidence on record, and based on a sound application of judicial mind to the sub-governing legal principles. The impugned order does not reflect any non-application of mind or extraneous considerations that would warrant reversal or modification. On the contrary, the order reveals a balanced and judicious consideration of the prima facie merits of the case, the documents produced by the parties, and the consequences that would ensue in the event the injunction is declined. 9. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing a prima facie right and the threat of irreparable injury, and that the balance of convenience is also in his favour. The impugned order, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 being a reasoned and lawful exercise of judicial discretion, does not call for any interference. The appellant's attempt to re-argue the case on merits at the interlocutory stage, without being able to dislodge the foundation of the trial Court reasoning, does not persuade this Court to interfere in appeal. Consequentially, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 10. In view of the nature of the case and the interlocutory stage at which the proceedings presently stand, this Court is not inclined to impose costs on either party, and therefore no order is made as to costs. However, having regard to the fact that the suit pertains to immovable property, and possession thereof, and to avoid prolonged uncertainty and multiplicity of proceedings, it is requested to the trial Court that, it shall make all its endeavour to dispose of the main suit expeditiously with all its promptitude. It is made clear that, the observations made herein are confined only to the consideration of the interlocutory relief and shall not - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28944 MFA No. 4251 of 2025 influence the trial Court during the adjudication of the suit on merits, which shall be undertaken independently, uninfluenced by any prima facie findings recorded herein. 11. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed, with no orders as to cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24