- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14333 MFA No. 2782 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 8408 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2782 OF 2021 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8408 OF 2019 (CPC) IN MFA No. 2782/2021: BETWEEN: SRI A.B. KEMPANNA S/O APPAYYANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT JINKEBACHAHALLI KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK PIN – 561 203. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. DANUSHA GOWDA B, ADV., FOR SRI SHANKARE GOWDA V.N, ADV.) AND: SRI SHANKARAYYA BHIXAVATI S/O LATE PARAYYA BIXAVATI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.39, 11TH CROSS NANJAPPA LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU – 560 097. …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.6485/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, CCH-61, DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14333 MFA No. 2782 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 8408 of 2019 IN MFA NO. 8408/2019: BETWEEN: SRI A.B. KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT JINKEBACHANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. DHANUSH GWDA B, ADV., FOR SRI SHANKARE GOWDA V.N, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI SHANKARAYYA BHIXAVATI S/O LATE PARAYYA BIXAVATI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.39, 11TH CROSS NANJAPPA LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU – 560 097. 2. SRI R. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.20, 10TH A CROSS ROAD VERUPAKSHAPURA BENGALURU – 560 092. 3. PRESIDENT N.T.I. HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.84, FIRST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS SERPENTINE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 020. 4. SECRETARY N.T.I., HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.84, FIRST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS SERPENTINE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14333 MFA No. 2782 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 8408 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2019 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 2 IN O.S.NO. 1819/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15), BENGALURU, ALLOWING I.A. NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT These Miscellaneous First Appeals arise out of two interlocutory orders passed in O.S.No.6485/2020 and O.S.No.1819/2019. 2. M.F.A.No.2782/2021 is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.6485/2020, aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), on the file of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61) (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court” for short), whereby the application for temporary injunction was rejected. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14333 MFA No. 2782 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 8408 of 2019 3. M.F.A.No.8408/2019 is preferred by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.1819/2019 (who is also the plaintiff in O.S.No.6485/2020), aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 15) (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court” for short), whereby the said application for temporary injunction was allowed. 4. O.S.No.1819/2019 is filed by the respondent seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the his peaceful possession over site No.166/B. Along with the suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.2 seeking temporary injunction against the defendants. 5. O.S.No.6485/2020 is filed by the appellant seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the his possession over site - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14333 MFA No. 2782 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 8408 of 2019 No.166/A. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession. 6. The dispute relates to two adjoining sites in the same layout. The plaintiff claims to have purchased site No.166/A under a registered sale deed dated 07.06.2013 in a residential layout. 7. The respondent claims ownership and possession of site No.166/B, which was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 03.06.2014. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has purchased Site No.166/A, earlier in the year 2013, whereas, respondent purchased Site No.166/B in 2014 and therefore, the appellant’s possession ought to have been protected. The Trial Court erroneously held that the appellant has not produced the possession certificate and the boundaries of the property were not clearly established. The Trial Court while considering the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14333 MFA No. 2782 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 8408 of 2019 application in O.S.No.1819/2019 wrongly granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent though he had not established a prima facie case. 9. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 10. Two suits are pending between the parties relating to adjoining sites namely 166/A and 166/B. The Trial Court while rejecting I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6485/2020 found that the appellant had not clearly established the possession and the documents produced did not clearly fix the boundaries of the suit property. The Trial Court took note of the fact that the injunction had already been granted in O.S.No.1819/2019, restraining the appellant from interfering with the respondent’s possession of site No.166/B. 11. The suit property in O.S.No.1819/2019 is Site No.166/B in the layout formed in Kodigehalli, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14333 MFA No. 2782 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 8408 of 2019 Kothihosahalli and Byatarayanapura villages, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, now named as Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, N.T.I. Layout, I Phase. The suit property in O.S.No.6485/2020 is Site No.166/A. 12. The Trial Court also observed that the documents produced by the plaintiff did not clearly establish the boundaries of the schedule property and that no possession certificate had been produced. On that basis, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case and declined to grant temporary injunction. 13. While allowing I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.1819/2019, the Trial Court, at paragraph No.12, observed as under: “12. On the other hand, defendants' Counsel has argued that when identity of the suit property itself is in question as per the lay-out map produced by the defendant No.1, site No.166/B is not situated adjoining to site No.166/A which is belonging to the first defendant. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to produce prima facie evidence regarding his possession over the suit schedule property. On perusal of the pleadings and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14333 MFA No. 2782 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 8408 of 2019 documents of both the parties, it appears to me that though in copy of the lay-out plan produced by defendant No.1 site No.166/B is shown adjoining to site No.163, by looking to the plaintiff's sale deed, boundaries are shown as towards East: site No.166/A, West private property; North: Society’s land, and South Road, - and in the sale deed belonging to the first defendant also, boundaries of the sites allotted to defendant No.1 are shown as East by site No.166, West by site No.166/B. North by site No.165 and South by road which shows that the site belonging to the plaintiff is situated towards West of the site of defendant No.1 as rightly described in the plaint schedule. Therefore, there is prima facie evidence to show that plaintiff has been allotted with site No. 166/B as described in the plaint and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, if defendants 1 and 2 interfere with the plaintiff's possession with no right whatsoever in the said site, definitely plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss. Even defendants 1 and 2 are not claiming any right or interest in the site situated towards West of site No.166/A which shows that with no any right or title over the adjoining property, defendants are trying to interere with the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is proper and necessary to protect the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property. Hence Point No.1 to 3 are answered as above.” 14. The Trial Court granted injunction in favour of the respondent in O.S.No.1819/2019 based on the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14333 MFA No. 2782 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 8408 of 2019 material on record. Since both the suits are pending, it is clarified that observations made while deciding the interlocutory application shall not influence the Trial Court in deciding the suit on merits. 15. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has rightly assessed the material and arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff in O.S.No.6485/2020 is not entitled to temporary injunction in view of the discrepancies in the documents produced. At the same time, the Trial Court has granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1819/2019 with respect to Site No.166/B. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 16. However, since the suits are still pending, and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned orders should not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14333 MFA No. 2782 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 8408 of 2019 influence the Trial Court while deciding the suits on merits, appropriate clarification is required. 17. In view of the above, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeals are hereby dismissed. ii. The order on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6485/2020 and order on I.A.No.2 in O.S. No.1819/2019 are hereby confirmed. iii. The Trial Court shall decide the suits on merits without being influenced made in the interlocutory applications or in the present appeals. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29