- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22348 MFA No. 2757 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2757 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. KUMARI RAGINI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O LATE M. ASHWATHANARAYANA, 2. KUMARI KEERTHANA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, D/O LATE M. ASHWATHANARAYANA, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.33, OPP: GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, NEAR SAMUDAYA BHAVAN, GOVINDAPURA, BENGALURU-560 045. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.N. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NANJUNDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE KARIBASAPPA, R/AT NO.3, NEW NO.1879, GOVINDAPURA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU-560 045. 2. K. GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE KARIBASAPPA, R/AT NO.1, KHB MAIN ROAD, KAVERI NAGAR, R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22348 MFA No. 2757 of 2025 3. SMT. G. SUDHARANI, D/O K. GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, KHB MAIN ROAD, KAVERI NAGAR, R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032. 4. G. KIRAN KUMAR, S/O K. GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, KHB MAIN ROAD, KAVERI NAGAR, R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATACHALAPATHI S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4367/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-9, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the plaintiffs calling in question the order dated 20.03.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.4367/2024 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-9) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22348 MFA No. 2757 of 2025 application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected and the interim order earlier granted stands vacated. Brief facts: 2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. They instituted a suit for bare junction in respect of the suit schedule property bearing Survey No.45/3 measuring 10 guntas situated at Nagawara Village, contending that the said property fell to their share, pursuant to a compromise decree passed in O.S. No.25013/2007 and that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is their case that the respondents/defendants, who have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession and hence, the suit and the interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction came to be filed. 3. Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B.N. Sunil Kumar, learned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22348 MFA No. 2757 of 2025 counsel for the appellants would contend that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in rejecting the application by entering into the questions relating to title and acquisition, which are matters to be decided only at the trial. It is further contended that the appellants are in settled possession of the suit schedule property and the respondents claim pertains to Sy. No.38/1, which is distinct from Sy. No.45/3. It is submitted that the Commissioner, appointed during the pendency of the appeal, has submitted a report, however, the said report has been specifically objected by the appellants. 4. Per contra, Sri Venkatachalapathi S.K., learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the appellants have failed to establish a prima facie case of possession over the suit schedule property. It is the contention that the respondents are owners of the property bearing Survey No.38/1 and the appellants are attempting to lay claim over the same by creating confusion with regard to the boundaries and survey - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22348 MFA No. 2757 of 2025 number. It is further contended that the property in question is subject to acquisition proceedings and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court?” 6. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case and the documents produced by the defendants indicate acquisition and vesting of the property and that the plaintiffs have not established possession over the suit schedule property and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants. 7. It is not in dispute that the suit is one for bare injunction in respect of the property bearing Survey - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22348 MFA No. 2757 of 2025 No.45/3 which is the suit schedule property. The claim of the respondents, on the other hand, is in respect of Sy. No.38/1. The material on record discloses that there is a serious dispute with regard to the identity and boundaries between Sy. No.45/3 and Sy. No.38/1. During the pendency of this appeal, a Commissioner was appointed and a report has been submitted. The commissioner's report has been objected by the appellants. 8. The Trial Court, while considering the application for temporary injunction, has proceeded to record findings touching the title and acquisition, which are matters that require adjudication during the course of trial. At the stage of considering an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Court is only required to examine whether the subject matter requires protection pending adjudication. 9. In the present case, having regard to the competing claims of the parties, the dispute regarding - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22348 MFA No. 2757 of 2025 identity of the property, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court ought to have adopted a course which would preserve the subject matter of the suit rather than rejecting the application in its entirety. At the same time, to balance the equities arising from the protection granted in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., Survey No.45/3, it is clarified that this order shall not be construed as conferring any right on the appellants to interfere with the property claimed by the respondent in Survey No.38/1. 10. Insofar as the Commissioner's report is concerned, since objections have been filed and dispute pertains to identity and boundaries, the parties are at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Trial Court for appointment of a Court Commissioner. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. It is further made clear that any findings or observations contained in the earlier Commissioner's report shall not affect the independent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22348 MFA No. 2757 of 2025 assessment of the Court Commissioner who may be appointed by the Trial Court. 11. In view of the discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order requires to be modified by directing parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property and the point framed for consideration is answered. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed-in- part. ii. The order dated 20.03.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.4367/2024 by the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-9) is set aside. iii. The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property bearing Survey No.45/3 till the disposal of the suit. iv. It is made clear that this order shall not confer any right upon the appellants to interfere with the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22348 MFA No. 2757 of 2025 property claimed by the respondents in Survey No.38/1. v. The parties are at liberty to file an application before the Trial Court for appointment of a Court Commissioner. If such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. vi. Any observation made in the Commissioner's report before this Court shall not influence the independent assessment of the Commissioner to be appointed by the Trial Court. vii. All the observations made herein are prima facie in nature and shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit on its merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70