- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4702 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. A.Y. SATHYAVATHI W/O KRISHNE GOWDA S.B AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.36/1, 13TH MAIN KENGERI UPANAGARA, KENGERI BANGALORE SOUTH-560 060 2. SRI. SAGAR GOWDA S/O KRISHNE GOWDA S.B AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.36/1, 13TH MAIN KENGERI UPANAGARA, KENGERI BANGALORE SOUTH-560 060 3. SMT. ANUSHKA W/O LATE SACHIN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.36/1, 13TH MAIN KENGERI UPANAGARA, KENGERI BANGALORE SOUTH-560 060 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. DHANUSH C S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.113 R Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 4TH CROSS, AGB LAYOUT SRIRAMANAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU-560 086 2. SRI. ASHISH V S/O V .MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 29 UYEARS RESIDING AT NO.109 VAD MANSION, HONNEGARADA ROAD KARISHMA HILLS, BEHIND KSYT COLLEGE GUBBALALA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 061 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. YOGENDRA H, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.6934/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-30), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 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:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc.Fist appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the 29th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.30) in OS No.6934/2024 whereby, the trial Court allowed I.A. No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the peaceful and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondents. 2. The appellants have contended that, the trial Court failed to consider materials records and erroneously granted the injunction despite serious disputes over title and the existence of acquisition proceedings concerning the land acquisition initiated by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA). 3. The subject matter of the suit is site No.23 formed in Sy.No.36/1 of Vaddarapalya Village, Bengaluru - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 North Taluk. The respondents claimed to have acquired the said site under registered Sale Deed dated 4.7.2024 from the legal heirs of one Sri H.S.Puttamadaiah. The vendor in turn, had allegedly purchased the site from one Ramanna in the year 1991. It is asserted that, Ramanna had the authority to sell the land through a General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the 1st appellant - Smt.A.Y.Sathyavathi. Based on this lineage of title, the respondents claim lawful ownership and uninterrupted possession which according to them, is evidenced by mutation entries, property tax receipts, and other civic documentation. They claim to have been in open, peaceful and continuous possession for many years without obstruction. 4. The appellants deny the respondent's claim and assert that the power of attorney relied upon is fabricated and was never executed by the first appellant. It is their case that no valid transfer ever took place and that the respondents claim is an outcome of illegal and fictitious - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 documentation. They further contend that, the entire extent of land comprised in Sy.No.36/1 was notified for acquisition by the Bengaluru Development Authority between 1989 and 1994 and respondent's claim cannot stand in the face of such acquisition. They also submit that, no valid layout was ever sanctioned in the said survey no. and therefore, any site carved out therein is illegal and non-existent in the eyes of law. The appellant's main contention is that, BDA has taken steps for acquisition and they have independently approached this Court by way of writ petitions challenging the said proceedings which are currently pending adjudication. 5. The learned trial Court, after considering the documents and arguments held that the respondents had established a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court observed that, the registered sale deed coupled with the khatha extract, tax receipts and revenue documents, lent considerable weight to the respondent's claim of possession. It further noted that, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 appellants had not produced convincing evidence to dislodge the respondent's documentary chain or to establish that the BDA had ever taken physical possession of the land. The trial Court found that, the respondents were in settled possession and that their possession was lawful unless displaced by lawful means. It also held that, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents and that denial of injunction would result in irreparable injury. Consequently, it restrained the appellants from interfering with the respondent's possession until the final adjudication of the suit. 6. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants, reiterates that, the trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent's claim rests entirely on a questionable power of attorney, the validity of which remains unproven. It is contended that, "fraud vitiates everything", and that the alleged foundational transaction of 1991 is void ab initio. He further contends that, the doctrine of "Nemo dat quod non habet" is a Latin legal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 maxim meaning "no one gives what he doesn't have" squarely applies as Ramana being unauthorized, could not have transferred any valid title to H.S.Puttamadaiah, much less to the respondents. He further asserts that, the entire case of the respondents must fall like house of cards, and that a suit for bare injunction without establishing clear title, is not maintainable, particularly when the title itself is in serious dispute. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Para.13 and para.13.2 have observed that: " 13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. 13.2. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession". 7. He submits that, when the title of the respondents itself is disputed then, the respondent - plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration. The schedule property is a vacant site which is not physically possessed and he submits that, in such cases, the principle is that, possession follows title as property is a vacant land. It is appellants who are in possession of the property and not respondents. Thus, he submits to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, Sri Arun Shyam, learned Sr.Counsel for respondents would contend that, possession when established with cogent documentary evidence deserves to be protected even in the absence of perfected title, especially where the possession is not clandestine but, is open and traceable to registered - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 documents. He would further contend that, the BDA has not taken possession nor has it passed any orders nullifying the private transactions. The respondents assert that they are bona fide purchasers for value in settled possession and cannot be dispossessed without recourse to law. Learned Sr.Counsel also relies upon the same judgment and submits that, the Hon'ble Apex Court while answering reference question No.1 has laid down certain law with regard to the general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction lie and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief. According to his submission, when the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title merely denies the plaintiff's title it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. He relied upon the observations of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 Hon'ble Apex Court so stated in Para.14 of the said judgment reported in the aforesaid Supreme Court case. He submits that as the appellants are not definite about their property though the appellants deny the title of the respondents, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the suit so filed by plaintiff-respondents for permanent injunction simpliciter is maintainable. 9. On a meticulous perusal of the records and having given my anxious consideration to the facts of the case, I am of considered opinion that, the trial Court's order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity that would justify interference in an appellate forum. It is a well established principle that, possession, even if not rooted in absolute title, is none-the-less a right in itself. The maxim "possessio civililr modo adhibita jus possessonis parit' recognizes that, possession lawfully obtained must be protected against unlawful interference. This Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Courts have consistently held that even a person in possession without - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 title is entitled to protect his possession against the whole world except the rightful owner. In the present case, the respondents have not claimed adverse possession but, have relied upon a series of registered transaction and documentary evidence to establish both their possession and its lawful origin. 10. The argument of the counsel for the appellants that the title is under cloud and therefore, an injunction should not be granted cannot be accepted without reservation in every case. The principle that "where title is seriously disputed, a suit for bare injunction does not lie" must be applied with caution. It is not an inflexible rule but, one of prudence and context. In the present case, the respondent's possession is not in doubt. They have produced documents to show not only possession but also their continuous treatment for the land as owners for civic purposes. Therefore, the observations of the Apex Court with regard to grant of injunction as stated in para.11 and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 14 of the judgments supra can very well be applied to the present facts of the case made out by the respondents. 11. At this stage the said principles and observations are squarely applicable to the case of the plaintiffs. The appellants, on the contrary have failed to show that they are in possession or that they have taken steps to assert their title except for relying on the pendency of writ petitions. They have not filed any separate suit for declaration. The law is that, Civil Court assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep on their right - is relevant in this case as per the popular maxim " "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" is a Latin legal maxim that translates to, the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. The respondents have acted upon their document and protected their possessions, the appellants however, have not established superior right that displaces the respondent's possession. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 12. The reliance placed on the BDA acquisition notification is not conclusive. The BDA has not been made a party to the present proceedings, nor has any material been placed to show that, the BDA has taken over possession or has cancelled the sale transactions. There is no document before this Court to suggest that compensation has been paid or possession has been taken. In the absence of actual resting and physical possession, the acquisition proceedings by themselves cannot be used to defeat the respondent's claim of current possession. It is trite law that, until the Government or acquiring body lawfully assumes possession, the land continues to vest in the original holder. The mere pendency of writ petitions is also not sufficient to deny interim protection to the party in possession especially where no stay or restraint order is in operation. 13. The balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of the respondents. If the injunction is vacated, the respondents are likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 and particularly considering their documented position and apparent residential or investment nature of the property. On the contrary appellants have failed to show what prejudice they would suffer if the injunction is continued pending final determination. The "Ubi jus ibi remedium" is a Latin legal maxim that mandates that "where there is a right, there is a remedy." In the facts of the present case, respondent's possessive rights warrant interim protection and the trial Court's reasoning to that effect is well founded and just. 14. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that, the learned trial Court exercised its discretion judiciously upon a correct appreciation of facts and law. No exceptional circumstance or manifest injustice is demonstrated to warrant interference in this appeal. The order impugned does not violate any settled principle nor does it result in failure of justice. The grant of temporary injunction in the facts and circumstances of the case is - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27661 MFA No. 4702 of 2025 both equitable and legally sustainable. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The order dated 17.6.2025 passed in OS No.6934/2024 by the 29th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is affirmed. (iii) Under the circumstances, no order as to costs. The observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the interlocutory application and shall not influence the merits of the suit which shall be decided independency in accordance with law. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53