- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37258 MFA No. 5439 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5439 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI P.N. SRINIVASA S/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. SMT. C. PUSHPALATHA W/O. P.N. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS BOTH ARE AT NO.165, RAMAKRISHNA BLOCK, T.R.NAGARA, BANGALORE -560028. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N. SRIRAM REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O. LATE BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SRI. SIDDARAJU S/O. LATE BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. LATE BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO. BANAVASI VILLAGE, MARALVADI HOBLI, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37258 MFA No. 5439 of 2025 HAROHALLI TALUK, RAMANAGRA DISTRICT - 562112. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2025 ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.386/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA, REJECTING IA NO.1 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 Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.386/2021 challenging the order dated 27.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.386/2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura1, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is rejected. 1hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37258 MFA No. 5439 of 2025 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that they are the owners and in lawful possession over the suit schedule properties and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have filed an application seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction by contending that the plaintiffs’ predecessors purchased the suit schedule properties through a registered sale deed dated 24.04.2015 from Gayithri Bai and Usha Bai, who were children of Vittal Rao Shilge and have produced mutation extracts, RTC’s, encumbrance certificates etc. It is the case of the defendants that their great grandfather Byrashettigowda and grandfather Karigowda have purchased the suit schedule properties from its original vendor, namely Vittal Rao Shilge, under the registered sale deed dated 07.03.1950 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37258 MFA No. 5439 of 2025 18.10.1957 and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 5. Further, it is the case of the defendants that the land bearing (old) Sy.No.89 was changed into (new) Sy.No.291, but mistakenly, the name of Govinda Rao Shilge was entered in the mutation extract and taking advantage of the same Gayatri Bai and Usha Bai have filed the suit in O.S.No.420/2008 without impleading the defendants as parties and obtained decree and thereafter, executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. The suit is filed for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Upon considering the documentary evidence placed by both the sides, the defendants have produced the copy of sale deeds dated 30.01.1949, 07.03.1950 and 18.10.1957, encumbrance certificates, endorsement issued by the Tahasildar, sketches, etc. These sale deeds disclose that the original owner Vittal Rao Shilge executed the sale deed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37258 MFA No. 5439 of 2025 dated 30.01.1949 in favour of the grandfather of the defendants by name Byrashettigowda. Thereafter, from the sale deeds dated 07.03.1950 and 18.10.1957, he sold the suit schedule properties in favour of Byrashettigowda and his son Karigowda. 7. When this being the fact disclosed through the documentary evidence, then the question is how the Gayatri Bai and Usha Bai have executed the sale deeds on 24.04.2015 in favour of the plaintiffs, this is the question to be considered during the trial and their father had already lost his title by virtue of the sale transactions as stated above. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the land bearing Sy.No.89 and Sy.No.291 are two different lands. Therefore, the daughters of Vittal Rao Shilge had sold the suit schedule land in Sy.No.291, but not Sy.No.89 and placed reliance on the RTC extracts, which is bearing Sy.No.291, but the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37258 MFA No. 5439 of 2025 mutation extracts produced by the defendants show that the land bearing (old) Sy.No.89 and (new) Sy.No.291. 9. Upon considering the extent of the land bearing Sy.No.89 and land bearing Sy.No.291, which are 01 acre 37 guntas and 02 acre 04 guntas respectively, totally comes 04 acre 01 guntas. Therefore, when this being the documentary evidence placed by both the sides, the Trial Court is correct in observing that Vittal Rao Shilge had already lost his title by executing sale deeds in the years of 1949, 1950 and 1957 to the great grandfather and grandfather of the defendants and also raised the question that how the daughters of Vittal Rao Shilge had executed the sale deeds in the year 2015 in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, the Trial Court is correct in holding that the plaintiffs do not have prima facie case. 10. Further the sale deeds of the defendants are much earlier than those of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the RTC extracts of the defendants show that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37258 MFA No. 5439 of 2025 they are in possession of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the Trial Court is correct in finding that the plaintiffs have failed to make out prima facie case and balance of convenience and if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, what loss and injury the plaintiffs would suffer is not convinced by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs’ if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41