- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24686 MFA No. 3003 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.3003 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VIRENDRA CHAUHAN S/O BRAHMANANDH CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. SRI JITENDRA CHAUHAN S/O VIRENDRA CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.6, E 188/2, 4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, PARVATHI NAGAR, LAGGERE, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560040. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI HARSHA D JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI L.M. LAKSHMAN S/O MADDURAPPAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.159, LAGGERE MAIN ROAD, NEAR SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE, KARUMARIYAMMA COMPLEX, 1ST BUILDING, 1ST MAIN, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 058. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GANGADHAR PUTTAMALLA, ADVOCATE C/RESPONDENT) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24686 MFA No. 3003 of 2026 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.04.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.8599/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45), PARTLY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiffs have preferred this Miscellaneous First Appeal challenging the order dated 06.04.2026 passed on I.A No. 1 in OS No. 8599/2025 on the file of XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court while considering the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction, partly allowed the application and directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24686 MFA No. 3003 of 2026 BRIEF FACTS 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property having acquired under the registered sale deed dated 07.12.2009 executed by their vendor H. L. Saraswathi, whose vendor had acquired title under a registered sale deed dated 03.04.2006. It is contended that ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and that katha, E-katha and revenue records stand in their names. The plaintiffs claim that they have obtained sanction building plan from BBMP and commenced construction activity over the suit property. According to them, the defendant attempted to interfere with their possession and obstructed the construction activity, thereby necessitating institution of the suit for permanent injunction and filing of I.A No. 1 seeking temporary injunction. 3. The defendant contested the suit, contending that the suit schedule property forms part of Sy. No. 7/2, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24686 MFA No. 3003 of 2026 originally belonging to Smt. Kare Muniyamma, and that the defendant, being one of the legal heirs, is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant specifically denied execution of any GPA, agreement of sale or sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs or their vendors and contended that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs, are fabricated and concocted. It was further contended that there exists a serious dispute regarding title and possession, and therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for an order of temporary injunction. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the Trial Court, despite recording a finding that the registered sale deed relied upon by the plaintiffs carry a presumption of validity, and despite noticing that the municipal and revenue records stood in the names of the plaintiffs, erred in not granting an order of temporary injunction. It is contended that the plaintiffs, have established a prima facie possession through registered sale deeds, tax paid receipts, katha certificates, e-katha - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24686 MFA No. 3003 of 2026 certificates, sanction building plan, BESCOM and BWSSB documents and that the defendant has not produced any material whatsoever to establish possession, over the suit schedule property and that mere denial of title cannot defeat the plaintiffs’ claim for interim protection. According to the appellants, the order directing maintenance of status quo is vague, unworkable and causes serious prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had already commenced construction activity pursuant to the sanction plan issued by the BBMP. It is therefore, contended that the impugned order suffers from improper exercise of discretion and is liable to be modified by granting temporary injunction. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the suit itself is not maintainable, as the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts. It is contended that the suit schedule property forms part of Sy. No. 7/2 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, situated at Laggere Village which originally belonged to Smt. Kare - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24686 MFA No. 3003 of 2026 Muniyamma under a registered sale deed dated 18.01.1945 and after her death, the property devolved upon her legal heirs, including the father of the defendant, and thereafter, upon the defendant and it is submitted that the respondent is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property. It is contended that the Trial Court, upon appreciation of the pleadings and material on record, has exercised its discretion in a fair and balanced manner by directing both the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the property and the same does not warrant any interference. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions 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?” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24686 MFA No. 3003 of 2026 7. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and documents produced by the parties, observed that the plaintiffs have produced registered sale deeds, tax paid receipts, katha certificates and e-katha standing in their names and further, observed that the registered sale deed carries a presumption regarding its validity and genuineness unless disputed in accordance with law, and at the same time the Trial Court further observed that the defendant had seriously disputed the very execution of the documents and asserted independent possession, over the property and held that the matter requires adjudication in full-fledged trial. Referring to the principles laid down in Dalpat Kumar vs Prahlad Singh1 (Dalpat Kumar) and Mandali Ranganna and Others vs T. Ramachandra and Others2 (Mandali Ranganna), the Trial Court held that preservation of the property pending adjudication is one of the objects of grant of interim relief. Consequently, while declining to 1 (1992) 1 SCC 719 2 AIR 2008 SC 2291 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24686 MFA No. 3003 of 2026 grant an order of absolute injunction, the Trial Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. 8. It is well settled that the Appellate Court would be slow in interfering with the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court, unless the discretion exercised is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse. The order passed by the Trial Court neither suffers from perversity or from non- application of mind. At the same time, if the appellants contend that they already possessed sanction plan and intend only to protect or continue limited construction, the liberty would be reserved to approach the Trial Court, seeking appropriate permission. Accordingly, it is made clear that the dismissal of this appeal shall not preclude the appellants/plaintiffs from approaching the Trial Court by filing appropriate application, seeking permission to undertake construction over the suit schedule property. In the event such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24686 MFA No. 3003 of 2026 consider the same independently, in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the respondent-defendant without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following : ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) The order dated 06.04.2026 passed on I.A No. 1 in OS No. 8599/2025 by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit is hereby confirmed. (iii) It is further observed that dismissal of the appeal shall not come in the way of the appellants/plaintiffs seeking appropriate - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24686 MFA No. 3003 of 2026 permission before the Trial Court for construction, if so advised, in accordance with law, which shall be considered by the Trial Court independently. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11