- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35965 MFA No. 1008 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1008 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI H. RUDRAIAH S/O HOSALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.237, 6TH MAIN ROAD, M.S. RAMAIHA ENCLAVE, 8TH MILE, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560073. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY C S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI T.R W/O KRISHNAMURTHY.C AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.41, 'MARUTHI NILAYA' 19TH CROSS, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35965 MFA No. 1008 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.4809/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-36), ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 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 Though appeal is listed for Admission, by the consent of learned counsels appearing for both parties it is taken up for final disposal. 2. The defendant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.4809/2023 on I.A.No.1, thereby, the application filed by plaintiffs for temporary injunction came to be allowed. 3. Rank of the parties is referred to as per their rankings before the trial court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35965 MFA No. 1008 of 2025 4. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant by averring in the plaint that he is the owner of site No.8 having purchased the same through sale deed dated 28.01.2022 and is in possession over the suit schedule site No.8 and the defendant being the owner of site No.7 started interfering with possession of site No.8. Therefore, filed the suit for permanent injunction. 5. The defendant has filed the written statement contending and averring that he is the owner of site No.7 and submitted that on the base of exparte order being obtained by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have encroached the site No.7 to the extent of 2 feet x 67 ½ feet. Further submitted that the title of plaintiffs is doubtful upon considering the fact on the reason that one Munishamappa was the owner and executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Tiruvengadam on 08.04.1982. Said Tiruvengadam had executed registered GPA in favour of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35965 MFA No. 1008 of 2025 one B.M.Nagaraj on 19.08.1996 and transferred the site No.8. Said B.M.Nagaraj has executed the sale deed in favour of his wife Shashikala on 20.09.2003. The said Shashikala had executed a gift deed in favour of her daughter Manjula. Said daughter Manjula had sold the property to the plaintiffs on 28.01.2022. Therefore, submitted originally the site was transferred only through GPA, hence there was no valid conveyance of the property. Hence, title of plaintiffs itself is doubtful. 6. Further submitted that plaintiff has filed suit against the owner of site No.8 and failed in the suit. Thereafter when the plaintiffs have not succeeded in the said suit filed against the owner of site No.9, then started interference with the possession of the defendant over site No.7 and encroached the portion of site No.7. Therefore, by virtue of interim order granted by the trial court of temporary injunction the plaintiff has encroached the site of the defendant, which is site No.8. Therefore, prays to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35965 MFA No. 1008 of 2025 allow the appeal and to vacate the order of temporary injunction. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs have purchased the property through sale deed dated 28.01.2022 from Manjula and there is valid conveyance of title. The plaintiffs are in possession of property and accordingly have produced tax paid receipts and electricity bills that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit site No.8. The defendant is the owner of site No.7, which is nothing to do with the site No.8 of the plaintiffs. Further submitted that the trial court has granted an order of temporary injunction mutual to each plaintiffs and defendant. Therefore, there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court and hence, prays to dismiss of the appeal. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the both parties, the following points would arise for consideration: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35965 MFA No. 1008 of 2025 (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant 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 granted then defendant would suffer any irreparable loss or injury? 9. According to plaint averments the plaintiffs are the owner of Site No.8. The plaintiffs have admitted that the defendant is the owner of adjacent site No.7. The plaintiffs have produced electricity bills, tax paid receipts showing prima facie that he is the owner of property site No.8 having purchased the same through sale deed dated 28.01.2022. The defendant has produced sale deed, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35965 MFA No. 1008 of 2025 electricity bills, tax paid receipts in respect of site No.7. The trial court has observed that there are allegations and counter allegations by the plaintiffs and defendant against each other of encroachment made by each other. 10. Admittedly the defendant is the owner of site No.7 and plaintiffs are the owner of site No.8. Whether the plaintiff is lawful owner of site No.8, is a question for trial in the suit before the trial court. The trial court has observed that when there is claim and counter claim between the plaintiffs and defendant against each other of encroachment, therefore formed an opinion that till disposal of the suit both the parties shall maintain status quo and accordingly granted an order of temporary injunction against both the plaintiffs and defendant mutually each other directing not to interfere with the respective properties owned by plaintiffs and defendant, which are site Nos.8 and 7 respectively. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35965 MFA No. 1008 of 2025 11. Though earlier the vendor's vendor of plaintiffs had filed the suit for injunction against the owner of site No.9 and has not succeeded, but that cannot have bearing on site Nos.7 and 8. The plaintiffs might have lost the suit filed earlier against the owner of site No.9, but because of having lost the suit against the owner of site No.9, when it is the case of defendant that plaintiffs have encroached a portion of site No.7, then it is for the defendant to take appropriate action against the plaintiffs, but that is not done. 12. The defendant has made counter claim and this aspect is triable issue before the trial court in the suit, but having shown prima facie case that the plaintiffs are in possession of site No.8 and produced electricity bills and tax paid receipts and showing prima facie case having possession over the site No.8, upon considering the claim and counter claim by both sides the trial court is correct in ordering order of temporary injunction against each other. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) to (iii) in the negative. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35965 MFA No. 1008 of 2025 Therefore, there is no perversity found in the order passed by the trial court and there is no need to make interference in the said order. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46