- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6042 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SREERAMAPPA S/O LATE APPAYANNA AGED 75 YEARS R/T THIRUMALASHETTY HALLI VILLAGE HANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-560 067 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUNI REDDY M.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. T.M. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 55 YEARS 2 . SRI. M. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 53 YEARS 3 . SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED 49 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT THIRUMALASHETTY HALLI VILLAGE HANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-560 067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.758/2022 (OLD NO. 1735/2021) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE, REJECTING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX 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 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is instituted under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC") by the appellant, being aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, in O.S.No.758/2022 (Old O.S.No.1735/2021), whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction. The appellant, through this appeal, seeks to assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the documents and materials placed on record and that the impugned order has been passed in violation of settled principles governing the grant of temporary injunction. The appellant alleges that, the Court below committed a grave error in law and on facts by refusing interim relief, thereby causing serious and irreparable injury to the rights and interests of the appellant over the suit schedule property. 2. The appellant's case, as laid before the trial Court and reiterated in the present appeal, revolves around a claim of ownership and possession over the B- schedule property, which is asserted to be a part of a larger property referred to as A-schedule. The genesis of the appellant's title is, a registered Sale Deed dated 18.03.1926, executed in favour of the appellant's - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 grandfather Dhodda Munishamappa, in respect of A- schedule property bearing Khaneshumari No. 10. It is submitted that, the Dhodda Munishamappa transferred the property to his daughter, Smt. Eramma, under a Relinquishment Deed dated 06.04.1936, and ever since, the descendants of Eramma, including the present appellant, have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property. 3. It is further contended that, the respondents herein have unlawfully encroached upon a portion of the said A-schedule property, which the appellant describes as B-schedule property, and have gone to the extent of putting up stone slabs to demarcate or enclose the area they have unlawfully occupied. The appellant seeks declaration of his absolute ownership and consequential relief of mandatory injunction for removal of such encroachment. Pending disposal of the suit, the appellant has sought temporary injunction to restrain the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 respondents from further altering the nature and character of the disputed property. 4. The learned trial Court, while considering the application for temporary injunction, had initially passed an ex-parte status quo order. This protection continued for some time. However, upon full hearing of both the parties and after detailed perusal of the documents and rival contentions, the trial Court dismissed the appellant's prayer for injunction by holding that, the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable hardship. The trial Court, while recording its conclusions, examined the material evidence including revenue documents, assessment extracts, Katha certificates and other public records. The trial Court was of the opinion that, the appellant did not place on record any document that would conclusively establish his possession over the B-scheduled property as distinct from the claims made by the respondents over their respective property. The trial Court also took note of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 the respondents’ assertion that, the suit itself was instituted suppressing material facts and that there were other civil suits already pending concerning the same subject matter. 5. The respondents, in their objections, have emphatically denied the appellant claims. They have contented that, there is no such property as B-schedule property as described in the plaint and that the land allegedly forming part of the disputed schedule belongs to them bearing Survey No. 52/2, which is an agricultural property owned and possessed by them. It is submitted that, the respondents are the lawful owners and possessors of the said land and that they have produced sufficient documentary evidence such as electricity bills, revenue extracts, tax paid receipts, and other documents in support of their claim. They contend that, the appellant is attempting to usurp their property by filing frivolous litigations and misleading the Court. It is also contended that the pending suits herein O.S.No.83/2011, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 O.S.No.84/2011 and O.S.No.190/2012 reveals that the appellant is engaged in multiple proceedings in respect of the same or similar subject matter, which further casts doubt upon his bona fide. 6. Having heard the arguments of both the sides and on perusal of the material on record, the central question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: 1. Whether the learned trial Court was justified in rejecting the appellant's application for temporary injunction? 2. Whether there was any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court? 7. The scope of interference in an appeal arising from an interlocutory order is limited and governed by well settled principles. The Appellate Court does not ordinarily substitute its own discretion unless the order under challenge suffers from manifest error or results in grave miscarriage of justice. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 8. In the present case, after giving anxious consideration to the rival submissions, pleadings, and documentary materials placed before the trial Court and this Court, this Court is of the considered view that, the impugned order does not call for interference. The trial Court has undertaken a detailed and methodical scrutiny of the documents filed by both the parties. The appellant much relies upon 1926 Sale Deed, which is unregistered and further relies upon 1936 Relinquishment Deed. These documents are not sufficient to conclude that, it is the plaintiff who is in possession and enjoyment of property as a owner. The appellant has not produced any contemporaneous evidence of possession to demonstrate a continuous and exclusive right over the portion of land now described as B-schedule property. The burden lies heavily upon the appellant to show that, the respondents' possession is illegal or that the respondents have committed acts of trespass warranting interim protection. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 However, the materials on record do not establish such a possession or recent acts of unlawful interference. 9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has produced certain documents with lists. In all, he has produced 26 documents, amongst them document No. 1 is the so called unregistered Sale Deed of the year 1926. In this document, there is no mention with regard to the exact property which was the subject matter of the Sale Deed. Just the boundaries have been mentioned. It is stated in this document that, surrounding the property so purchased by Dhodda Munishamappa, there exists a old dilapidated houses etc., so also courtyard. To prove and substantiate the said fact, except this document, no other document is produced. Based upon the registered Sale Deed, there was a Relinquishment Deed in the year 1936. Typed copy of the same is produced at document No. 2. In this document, for the first time, the boundaries have been mentioned with regard to the property so relinquished. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 How these boundaries are being mentioned is not made clear. 10. Further the appellant has produced certain documents to show that, his name is appearing in the concerned panchayat records etc., and panchayat has issued the endorsement. Even the name of the appellant is appearing in the concerned revenue records etc. He has produced RTC extract, document issued by the panchayat. Placing reliance upon all these documents Nos. 1 to 26. Learned counsel for the appellant with all vehemence submits that, these documents duly prove the possession of the plaintiff's over the suit schedule property so more surely described as B-schedule property. 11. As against this submission, Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for the respondents with all vehemence submits that, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the plaintiff. He would submit that, the submission of the counsel for the appellant holds not - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 good. There is no document which is standing in the name of the plaintiff. It is submitted that, at the time of interlocutory stage, the present documents do not prove prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that, though the appellant argues that the documents are concocted, but whether those documents are concocted or not it requires a trial. He further submits that, in case the plaintiff succeeds in his claim, the respondents undertake that he will not claim any equity. He further submits that, in the year 1926 no extent is shown with regard to the subject matter of the sale. Then how can there will be encroachment by the respondents? Thereafter, Release Deed came to be executed, which has not given right to the plaintiffs. 12. None other documents show that, plaintiff’s name is appearing in respect of the schedule property. Further he submits that, to prove the allegations made in the plaint, evidence is very much required. At the time of interlocutory stage, Court cannot conduct a mini trial. He - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 further submits that, when defendants deny the existence of a B-schedule property in the manner alleged in the plaint, the plaintiff cannot seek any temporary injunction against the defendants. Rightly the learned trial Court has dismissed the application. As the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts, he is not entitled for a temporary injunction as prayed for. 13. Further he has produced the copy of the order passed on I.A.No. 1 in O.S.No.190/2012 dated 05.04.2013 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote in between Ramappa that is the present plaintiff and the said suit was against the Government. In the said order the temporary injunction was granted against defendant Nos. 5 and 6 therein. To this the respondents are not parties. 14. He further relied upon a sketch to show that where exactly the schedule property is situated. He submits that, survey No.52 is situated towards the eastern side of light green portion. Thus, he would submit that, the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 defendants deny the very existence of the B-schedule property in the manner alleged in the plaint. 15. In view of this rival submission of both the side, at this stage, this Court is also unable to accept the appellant's argument that, the respondents have colluded with the Grama Panchayat and manipulated the records. Such allegations are serious in nature and must be substantiated by cogent material. In the present case the appellant has failed to place on record any document or evidence pointing towards such manipulation or fabrication. On the contrary, the revenue records and other documents produced by the respondents prima facie support their claim of possession. Furthermore, the existence of parallel litigation concerning the same property indicates that, the dispute is not amenable to summary adjudication at the interlocutory stage. The multiplicity of suits and overlapping claims necessitate a full-fledged trial, where oral and documentary evidence can be evaluated in detail. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 16. It is the settled principle of law that, a party seeking temporary injunction must satisfy three conditions - namely, existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour, and the likelihood of suffering irreparable loss in the absence of interim relief. These three factors must coexist and are not disjunctive. 17. The trial Court has, in the present case, rightly held that, none of the three ingredients are satisfied. The appellant has not made out any prima facie case to establish his exclusive possession or ownership. The balance of convenience is not in his favour as respondents are already in settled possession of the land and any interference at this stage would cause greater hardship to them. No irreparable injury has been shown to be likely in the event the injunction is not granted. Even at the time of argument the learned counsel for the respondents undertook that, in case the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the respondents will not claim any equity. That means the appellant can always seek restoration and other - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 consequential relief if he succeeds in the suit, and such restoration can be directed by the Court at that stage. 18. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, and also undertaking given by the respondents' counsel that in case the plaintiff succeeds, the respondents will not seek an equity, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the trial Court is reasoned, well founded, and based on a balanced assessment of the factual matrix and legal position. There is no material irregularity, error of jurisdiction, or perversity warranting appellate interference. The appellant has failed to make out a case that would call for exercise of appellate discretion under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC. The grounds urged by the appellant are untenable and do not merits further consideration. More so, in view of the undertaking given by the respondents that they will not claim any equity, even if the plaintiff succeeds, that protects the interest of the plaintiff. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29356 MFA No. 6042 of 2024 19. In conclusion, this appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) Order dated 04.07.2024 passed in O.S. No.758/2012 (Old O.S. No.1735/2021) by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The trial Court is requested to proceed with the main suit and dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law with all its promptitude. No orders as to cost. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43