- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2026 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1203 OF 2026 (CPC) IN MFA NO.1227/2026 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. THIRUMAMMA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, D/O SRI KENCHAIAH, NO.9-A, ANAGALLI DODDI VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571439. 2. SRI L HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SRI LAKSHMAN, NO.237, 9TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR, 3RD BLOCK, BENGALORE-560011. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI PRABHAKAR L. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SWAMI SUKHABODHANANDA SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE CMS MOORTHY, NO.1, NIRGUNA MANDIR LAYOUT, ST BED AREA, 1ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560047. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.J. KAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.1268/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908. IN MFA NO.1203/2026 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. THIRUMAMMA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, D/O SRI KENCHAIAH, NO.9-A, ANAGALLI DODDI VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 439. 2. SRI L. HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SRI LAKSHMAN, NO.237, 9TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR, 3RD BLOCK, BENGALORE-560011. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI PRABHAKAR L. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SWAMI SUKHABODHANANDA SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE CMS MOORTHY, NO.1, NIRGUNA MANDIR LAYOUT, ST BED AREA, 1ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560047. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.J. KAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V IN O.S.NO.1268/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT These Miscellaneous First Appeals are directed against the common order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (‘the Trial Court’ for short) in OS No. 1268/2025, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC came to be allowed in part by directing maintenance of status quo, and the application filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC came to be rejected. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order and involve common question, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. BRIEF FACTS 2. The suit property is an extent of 6 acres of agricultural land in Sy. No. 190 (old Sy. No. 73) of Agara Village. The plaintiff claims title over the suit schedule property under registered sale deeds of the years 1991 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 and 1995, and contends that his name has been entered in the revenue records and that he is in possession. Alleging interference by the defendants and illegal construction, the plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking for declaration, cancellation of the gift deed and consequential injunction. On the other hand, the defendants claim that the suit property was granted in their favour by the Land Tribunal by order dated 29.08.1980 conferring occupancy rights, pursuant to which, Form No. 10 was issued and revenue entries were mutated in their names. It is further contended that, defendant No. 1, being the absolute owner, executed a registered gift deed dated 30.03.2024 in favour of defendant No. 2, who is in possession and enjoyment of the property. 3. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction and the defendants filed application seeking - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 vacation of the ex parte order and also an injunction against the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants/defendants are in lawful possession pursuant to the occupancy rights granted in the year 1980, which has attained finality. The plaintiff's claim based on sale deeds is untenable in law, as the sale is subsequent to the grant of occupancy right. It is contended that the Trial Court has failed to consider the statutory records and the settled possession of the defendants and that the defendants are entitled to seek for injunction. however, the Trial Court has erroneously rejected their application. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contends that the plaintiff is in possession based on a registered sale deed and revenue entries. It is contended that the defendants are attempting to encroach and put up construction over the suit property. The application filed by the defendants seeking - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 temporary injunction was not maintainable and rightly rejected by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the Trial Court has protected the property by directing maintenance of status quo. 6. 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 directing maintenance of status quo and rejecting the application filed by the defendants calls for interference? 7. The Trial Court upon consideration of the material held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury tilt in favour of protecting the property. There exists a serious dispute regarding title which cannot be adjudicated at the interlocutory stage. Further the construction activity is going on and therefore the property requires to be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 protected. Accordingly, the Trial Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the nature and possession of the suit property, rejecting the application filed by the defendants. 8. From the material on record, it is evident that there is a serious dispute with regard to title and possession of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court has rightly observed that such issues cannot be finally adjudicated at the interlocutory stage. The direction issued by the Trial Court to maintain status quo is justified, as the same is intended to preserve the property pending adjudication of the rights in the suit and is in consonance with the settled principles governing temporary injunction. 9. Insofar as the application filed by the defendants is concerned, it is necessary to advert to the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 1 which reads as under : “1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.-Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in a execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.” 10. A plain reading of the above provision indicates that under Rule 1 (a), where there is a threat of waste, damage or alienation, either party to the suit can maintain an application seeking protection of the property. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 However, under Rule 1(b) and (c), which relate to interference with possession or other injury, the relief is contemplated at the instance of the plaintiff whose possession is sought to be protected. In the present case, the application filed by the defendants is not one seeking protection against waste or alienation of the property so as to fall within Rule 1(a). On the contrary, the defendants seek an injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their alleged possession, which squarely falls within the category of relief contemplated under Rule 1(b) and (c). Such a relief in the absence of a counter claim or an independent pleading seeking substantive relief cannot be maintained by the defendants. Defendants cannot seek an injunction in the nature of an independent relief, de hors the pleadings, except in circumstances strictly falling within the scope of Rule 1 (a) and otherwise must seek, such relief by properly constituted claim. In the present case, admittedly no counter claim has been filed nor the case of the defendants brought within the ambit of Rule 1 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 (a). Therefore, the application filed by the defendants seeking injunction restraining the plaintiff from interference is not maintainable. 11. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shakunthalamma and Others v. Smt. Kanthamma and Others1 (Shakunthalamma) at para 33 has held as under : “33. The correct legal position as is clear from the statutory provision is as under: (i) Both the plaintiff and the defendant can maintain an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) of the Code for the reliefs set out in the said provision; (ii) Insofar as relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) and (c) is concerned, such a relief is available only to the plaintiff and the defendant cannot maintain an application for the said reliefs in a suit filed by the plaintiff, irrespective of the fact that his right to such relief arises either from the same cause of action or a cause of action that arises subsequent to filing of the suit. 1 ILR 2014 KAR 6025 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 However it is open to the defendant to maintain a separate suit against the plaintiff and seek relief provided under Order 39 Rule 1(b) and (c) of the Code. (iii) In cases which do not fall under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief of injunction in its discretion, if it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court and nothing in this Code shall limit or otherwise affect such inherent power of the court.” 12. The Full bench observed that, (i) Under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) both plaintiff and defendant can maintain an application for temporary injunction. (ii) However, relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1 (b) and (c) is available only to the plaintiff, and the defendant cannot maintain an application seeking such relief in a suit instituted by the plaintiff, irrespective of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 whether the cause of action arises out of the same transaction or subsequent events. (iii) The defendant, if so advised, may seek such relief by way of a separate suit against the plaintiff (or counter claim could have been maintained). (iv) In cases which do not fall under Order XXXIX Rule 1, the Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC if necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court holds that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the defendants while at the same time directing maintenance of status quo so as to protect the subject matter of the suit. Hence, this Court pass the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24037 MFA No. 1227 of 2026 C/W MFA No. 1203 of 2026 ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeals are hereby dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in OS No. 1268/2025 on I.A.Nos. II and V is hereby confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60