Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12324 (KAR)

SRI C NARAYANAPPA v. SRI M MOHAN BABU

MFA/7673/2025 · 2026-04-17

K S Hemalekha

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7673 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7672 OF 2025 (CPC) IN MFA NO.7673/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI C. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 048. 2. SRI N. SRINIVAS, S/O SRI C. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 048. 3. SRI N. PUSHPARAJ, S/O SRI C. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 048. 4. SRI N. NAGARAJ, S/O SRI C. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 RESIDING AT MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 048. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI DEVARAJ N. AND SMT. Y.P. ABHILASHA, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI M. MOHAN BABU S/O SRI K.S. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.153, 1ST MAIN, PUTTAPPA LAYOUT, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 048. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI N.S. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.2904/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-30), ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. IN MFA NO.7672/2025 BETWEEN: SRI C. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKANNA CHIKKONE, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 048. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI DEVARAJ N. AND SMT. Y.P. ABHILASHA, ADVOCATES) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O SRI K.S. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.153, 1ST MAIN, PUTTAPPA LAYOUT, MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 048. 2. SRI M. MOHAN BABU, S/O SRI K.S. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/NO.153, 1ST MAIN, PUTTAPPA LAYOUT, MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 048. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI N.S. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.3858/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-30), REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT MFA No.7673/2025 is directed against the order dated 17.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.2904/2019 by the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. 2. MFA No.7672/2025 is directed against the order dated 17.09.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.3858/2023, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the applications for temporary injunction and modification of interim order. 3. Since both the appeals pertain to rival claims over portions of the same survey number and involve common questions relating to possession, title and grant of interim relief, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 4. The appellants in MFA No.7673/2025 are the defendants in O.S. No.2904/2019 and plaintiffs in O.S. No.3858/2023, wherein they have challenged the order passed in MFA No.7672/2025. Brief facts: 5. The dispute relates to the land bearing Survey No.52/1 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas situated at Mahadevapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. The said property originally belonged to one Chikkanna @ Chikkonu, who is stated to have acquired under the provisions of the Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and thereafter, the property stood mutated in his name and subsequently, in name of his legal heirs. It is the case of C. Narayanappa, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No.3858/2023 and defendant in O.S. No.2904/2019, that he and his family members are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of property, which continues to be an agricultural land, those certain portions have been put up to limited use. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 6. On the other hand, Mr. M. Mohan Babu, plaintiff in O.S. No.2904/2019, claims that the portion of the said land was formed in sites during the year 1988-1989 and his mother Munirathnamma acquired rights over the site described as ‘B’ schedule property under the General Power of Attorney and affidavit of the year 1989. Pursuant to which, a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2019 and rectification deed were executed in his favour. Based on the said documents, he asserts possession over the site and alleges interference by the defendants. Conversely, the appellants contend that the said documents are fabricated and not conclusive, and that no site exists as claimed and that the respondent has created the documents to lay a false claim over the property. 7. It is further their case that a layout was indeed formed in the property and sites were sold to various purchasers, who are in possession and that earlier litigation initiated by such purchasers has culminated in decrees recognizing their possession. In this background, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 two suits came to be filed, one by M. Mohan Babu in O.S. No.2904/2019 seeking injunction in respect of the site claimed by him and another by C. Narayanappa in O.S. No.3858/2023 seeking injunction over the larger extent of ‘A’ schedule property. 8. The Trial Court, by separate orders dated 17.09.2025, allowed the injunction in O.S. No.2904/2019 and rejected the injunction and modification application in O.S. No.3858/2023, which have given rise to the present appeals. 9. Learned senior counsel Sri S. Sreevatsa appearing on behalf of Sri Devaraj .N, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in granting injunction in O.S. No.2904/2019 while rejecting the injunction in O.S. No.3858/2023. Though both matters arise out of the very same property bearing Survey No.52/1, involve overlapping claims. It is contended that the property - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 originally belonged to Chikkanna @ Chikkonu and thereafter, devolved upon the appellants, who are in lawful possession of the entire extent. The documents relied by the respondent, namely the General Power of Attorney and the affidavit of 1989 and the sale deed of 2019 are fabricated, collusive and not binding on the appellant. It is further contended that: i. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that respondent has not established possession. ii. The alleged Site No.20 itself is doubtful and non-existent. iii. Earlier litigation concerning sites formed in the very same survey number have resulted in decrees recognizing possession of purchasers, which demolishes the respondent's claim. iv. The respondent has suppressed the material facts. It is thus submitted that the Trial Court has misapplied the principles under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 CPC and impugned order suffers from perversity and inconsistency. 10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Smt. S. Susheela appearing on behalf of Sri N.S. Viswanatha, learned counsel for the respondent would justify the order passed in O.S. No.2904/2019, contending that the respondent has established a clear prima facie case and lawful possession based on registered sale deed and mutation entries. It is contended that the appellants have no manner of right over ‘B’ schedule property and are attempting to interfere with the respondent's possession. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the document, has rightly granted injunction in favour of the respondent. With regard to O.S. No.3858/2023, it is contended that the plaintiff therein (appellants) has failed to establish possession of the entire extent and the existence of the layout and third party purchasers disentitles him to discretionary relief. Hence, rejection of injunction is justified. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 11. This Court has carefully considered the contentions and perused the material on record. 12. It is not in dispute that both O.S. Nos.2904/2019 and 3858/2023 are adjudicated by the very same Court and the orders in both the matters are dated 17.09.2025. The subject matter in both suits arises out of the very same survey number, though reliefs claimed are in respect of different portions. The Trial Court in O.S. No.2904/2019 has held that: i. The plaintiff therein has established a prima facie possession based on sale deed and supporting documents. ii. Balance of convenience lies in his favour. iii. Likelihood of irreparable injury, if injunction is not granted. Accordingly, injunction was granted. 13. However, in O.S. No.3858/2023 the very same Court has held that: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 i. The plaintiff has failed to establish possession over the entire schedule ‘A’ property. ii. Evidence discloses that the layout are formed and sites are sold. iii. Third party purchases are in possession. iv. Plaintiff has suppressed material facts. Accordingly, the application for injunction and modification of the interim order were rejected. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that, since both suits arise out of Survey No.52/1 and the Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding in O.S. No.3858/2023, that a layout has been formed, sites have been sold and purchasers are in possession. The grant of injunction in O.S. No.2904/2019, in respect of the portion, without reconciling the aforesaid findings, is prima facie unsustainable. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 15. At the stage of consideration under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, the Court is not expected to finally adjudicate title, but must ascertain who is in settled possession. The material on record indicates a serious dispute regarding identity of property, existence of site and possession, coupled with prior litigation and competing claims of third parties. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that either party has established a clear, unequivocal prima facie case of possession warranting the grant of an exclusive injunction. 16. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the status quo is directed to be maintained with respect to the nature and possession of the suit schedule property, i.e., Site No.20, pending disposal of the suit. 17. Accordingly, both parties are directed to maintain status quo as on the date of this order. Neither party shall alter the nature of the property or interfere - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 with the existing possession until disposal of the suit. Accordingly, this court pass the following: ORDER i. The miscellaneous first appeals are hereby disposed of. ii. The Orders dated 17.09.2025 on I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.2904/2019 and I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.3858/2023 are hereby modified. iii. Both parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of Site No.20 with regard to nature, possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property until disposal of the suits. iv. It is further clarified that neither party shall alienate the property or create any third party rights or party shall put up any construction or otherwise alter the nature of the property. v. The Trial Court shall dispose of both the suits expeditiously without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21197 MFA No. 7673 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7672 of 2025 vi. All rival contentions of the parties are kept open to be adjudicated at trial. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55