- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13483 MFA No. 9603 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9603 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRIVATSA .S S/O LATE V. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.109, VALLABHA NILAYA, VALLABHA NAGARA, DODDAKALLASANDRA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560062. …APPELLANT (BY SRI HATTARAKIHAL PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAJALAKSHMI, W/O LATE V. VASANTHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. PARTHASARATHI, S/O LATE V. VASANTHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O LATE V. VASANTHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4. V. MADHUSUDHANA, S/O LATE V. VASANTHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 5. V. MURALI, S/O LATE V. VASANTHA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13483 MFA No. 9603 of 2025 R-1 TO R-5 ARE RESIDING AT VASANTHAPURA VILLAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT PIN-560061. 6. RAJAKUMAR, S/O SATYAPPA THUKARAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.273, YADALAM NAGAR, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560061. 7. P. GOVINDAN, S/O PUDURAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 8. SMT. A. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O GOVINDAN, AGED AOUT 35 YEARS, R-7 AND R-8 ARE RESIDING AT NO.59, 3RD CROSS, VASANTHA VALLABHA NAGAR, VASANTHPURA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 TO R-5; SRI GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 TO R-8) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.7916/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (C.C.H.16) DISMISSING 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 ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13483 MFA No. 9603 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the order on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in O.S.No.7916/2024 on the file of XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (C.C.H.16) (‘trial Court’ for short), whereby, the said application came to be rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The plaintiff has instituted suit O.S.No.7916/2024 seeking relief of declaration, recovery of possession and consequential permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, he is the absolute owner of Suit Schedule-B property measuring 35 guntas, which forms part and parcel of Suit Schedule-A property measuring 10 acres 32 guntas, including 9 guntas of excess land allegedly granted by the Special Tahsildar by order dated 05.11.2003. The plaintiff states that the defendants have encroached upon 12 guntas of land on the southern side - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13483 MFA No. 9603 of 2025 out of 35 guntas of Suit Schedule-B property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up further construction in the encroached portion. 4. Objections were filed by the defendants to the said application. The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, documents and submission, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish: i. A prima facie case. ii. Balance of convenience in his favour. Consequently, rejected I.A.No.1 by order dated 07.11.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court failed to appreciate that Suit Schedule–B property forms part and parcel of Suit Schedule–A property, which lies on the southern side of the property belonging to defendant Nos.1 to 5. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13483 MFA No. 9603 of 2025 6. It is further contended that the defendants are attempting to encroach upon 12 guntas of land out of 35 guntas of Suit Schedule–B property and that the trial Court erred in concluding that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to establish the alleged encroachment. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order and submits that the trial Court upon appreciation of the material on record has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to establish the essential ingredient required for grant of temporary injunction and therefore, the order does not warrant any interference. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. The trial Court, while considering the application for temporary injunction, observed that the plaintiff claims that his father was granted 10 acres 23 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13483 MFA No. 9603 of 2025 guntas of land in Sy.No.48, which upon phodi, was assigned as Sy.No.48/1. however the plaintiff has also stated that out of 10 acres 23 guntas, his father has sold 9 acres of land and retained 1 acre 23 guntas. Further, that the plaintiff contends that out of 1 acre 23 guntas, he is in possession of 28 guntas, whereas, the remaining 35 guntas is allegedly occupied by the defendants without any right. 10. The trial Court has observed that in the prayer column of the plaint, the plaintiff seeks a direction to the defendants to handover vacant possession of the encroached 12 guntas of land out of 35 guntas of Suit Schedule-B property. Thus, the trial Court found inconsistency in the case of the plaintiff, as it was not clear whether: i. The claim of the plaintiff was in respect of entire 35 guntas or - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13483 MFA No. 9603 of 2025 ii. Only 12 guntas allegedly encroached by the defendants. 11. The trial Court further observed that the plaintiff has not produced any material to prima facie establish that the defendants have encroached the Suit Schedule-B property. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC would interfere with the discretionary order of the trial Court only when the order suffers from perversity, illegality or material irregularity. A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the trial Court has carefully considered the pleadings and documents placed on record and rightly observed that the plaintiff himself is not clear with regard to the extent of land claimed and alleged encroachment, and therefore has failed to establish a prima facie case warranting grant of temporary injunction. 12. The manner in which the trial Court has assessed the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no perversity or illegality in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13483 MFA No. 9603 of 2025 the impugned order warranting interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27