- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22163 MFA No. 9334 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9334 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI M. VENKATASHAMAIAH @ VENKATESH S/O. LATE MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.12/2, CHENNASANDRA VILLAGE, R. R. NAGAR POST, KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 098. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SATISH MARIYAPPA S/O. A.N. CHIKKA MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.168, 5TH MAIN, 5TH STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.661, GANNON HEIGHTS LN. FRISCO-TEXAS-575033. REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER SRI NAGESH HERAGANALLI LINGEGOWDA S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.308, 2ND CROSS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22163 MFA No. 9334 of 2025 9TH MAIN, CANARA BANK COLONY, BENGALURU – 560072. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.M. SREERAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2025 IN O.S.NO.4547/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCCH.42), ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the defendant calling in question the order dated 22.11.2025 passed on I.A No. 1/2025 in OS No. 4547/2025 on the file of XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, CPC has been allowed granting temporary injunction. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22163 MFA No. 9334 of 2025 BRIEF FACTS 2. The plaintiff instituted suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property bearing site No. 195, contending that the said site forms part of a layout developed by BEML Employees Co-operative Society out of land bearing Sy. Nos. 45, 46 and 48 of Channasandra Village. It is the case of the plaintiff that the society had acquired and converted the said lands, formed a residential layout and allotted the site to its members, from whom the plaintiff has derived title under a registered sale deed dated 03.09.2011. The plaintiff claims to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property by virtue of the said documents, katha, tax paid receipts and electricity connection and asserts that the structure and compound wall existed over the property. It is further alleged that on 15.06.2025 the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's possession and attempted to demolish the structures and caused damage to the property leading to the lodging of a complaint and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22163 MFA No. 9334 of 2025 registration of FIR. On these allegations the suit for bare injunction came to be filed. 3. The defendant, who is the appellant herein, entered appearance and filed written statement along with a counter claim contending that the land bearing khaneshumari No. 61 (Sy No. 22) is his ancestral property granted in favour of his father and subsequently released in his favour by other family members. It is his case that the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or possession over the said property and is attempting to encroach by wrongly identifying his site within the defendant's land. The defendant relies upon earlier writ proceedings and the ADLR survey report to contend that the plaintiff's claim overlaps with his property. 4. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A No. 1/2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction. By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the said application which is assailed in the present appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22163 MFA No. 9334 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. It is submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts particularly the earlier writ petition and ADLR survey report which clearly indicate that the plaintiff has identified his site within the property belonging to the defendant. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not established proper possession and a suit for bare injunction against the true owner is not maintainable. It is submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the ADLR report and other documents produced by the defendant which prima facie disclose encroachment by the plaintiff. The finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff is in possession is perverse and not supported by acceptable evidence. It is submitted that the defendant having filed counter claim seeking injunction was entitled for his possession. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff seeks to justify the impugned order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22163 MFA No. 9334 of 2025 and contends that the plaintiff has established his possession over the suit schedule property by producing registered sale deed, tax paid receipts and electricity records. It is submitted that the interference by the defendant is evident by the complaint and FIR and therefore the Trial Court was justified in protecting the plaintiff's possession. It is contended that the ADLR report relied upon by the defendant is not conclusive and cannot be relied upon at an interlocutory stage without being proved in accordance with law and the question whether the suit property falls within the defendant's land is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The Trial Court has held that in a suit for injunction, the primary consideration at the interlocutory stage is possession as on the date of the suit and not final adjudication of title. The plaintiff has produced registered sale deed, katha extract, tax paid receipt and electricity records which prima facie - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22163 MFA No. 9334 of 2025 establish possession over the suit schedule property. The allegation of interference is also supported by complaint and FIR. The contention of the appellant that the ADLR survey report discloses encroachment has been duly considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has held that the said report not having been proved in accordance with law and being subject to trial cannot be treated as a conclusive at the interlocutory stage. The question whether the suit property falls in Sy. No. 22, Khaneshumari No. 61 or within the layout formed by the society, is a matter to be established by evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. 8. The law is well settled that the Appellate Court will not interfere with the discretionary order of the Trial Court unless the same is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse as held by the Apex Court in Wander Ltd. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22163 MFA No. 9334 of 2025 and Another Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.1 (Wander Ltd.), at para 14 as under : “14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view 1 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22163 MFA No. 9334 of 2025 may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph: (SCR 721) “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.” 9. In the present case, the Trial Court has exercised its discretion judicially based on the material available on record in accordance with the settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction. Hence, the impugned order does not call for interference and this Court pass the following : - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22163 MFA No. 9334 of 2025 ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) The order passed on I.A No. 1/2025 dated 22.11.2025 in OS No. 4547/2025 on the file of XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, stands confirmed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44